 on the Intergovernmental Conference which we approved in November. I am saying this because I missed some of her thoughts on certain points which are absolutely vital in our opinion.
We are certainly now facing an historic challenge in terms of advancing and consolidating the Union and reorganising it in order to cope with enlargement.
My colleague, Mr Hänsch, will talk specifically about enlargement in detail.
I will restrict myself to the over-enlargement caused by our relationship with Turkey.
I can say that the Socialist Group is unanimous on this.
We do believe it is advisable to adopt a positive position with regard to Turkey.
However, firstly, Turkey must show willing.
It cannot just expect and it is therefore vital how it acts in the Öçalan case.
Secondly, a plan of action must be prepared.
Returning to the very balanced position of this House on the Intergovernmental Conference, the Council must not adopt a low-key approach to this issue.
Enlargement is a major political ambition and we have to know how to respond to this. We cannot simply say that there are some reforms to be made on a few remaining points or that this is an issue to be resolved only in terms of costs.
We have to be capable of providing the major political impetus needed for this process.
I also place great importance on something which has hardly been mentioned. We are carrying out a parallel exercise of constitutionalising the Treaties, by preparing a Charter of Fundamental Rights, at the same time as planning the Intergovernmental Conference.
We have an obligation to our fellow citizens - and note that the President-in-Office of the Council comes from a Nordic country which is always boasting about transparency - to achieve a transparent process in which this House is duly represented. I would like Mrs Halonen to reject the view expressed that the Council Presidency is opposed to full representation of the European Parliament, with two representatives, at the Intergovernmental Conference.
We must also explain to our political forces, to our national MPs and to our people, why we are holding the IGC, why we want a Charter of Fundamental Rights, why we want enlargement and why we have the responsibility of ensuring that the Community operates as a community.
On defence there is one point about which I am very pleased. The President-in-Office of the Council, who comes from a tradition of neutrality, has become an expert on security and defence.
She is to be congratulated on this.
Finally, I must refer to the absolutely fundamental issue of growth, stability and employment.
This is an issue on which the line taken in Luxembourg, and then in Cardiff, Cologne and Helsinki, must be consolidated at the next Summit under the Portuguese Presidency. We realise that, to have a prosperous future in the Union, we must be capable of being more competitive and generating more economic growth, but with the emphasis on employment and social cohesion which are, and must be, our first priorities.
These are the challenges which my group wants the Helsinki Summit to respond to in a positive manner.
Mr President, the President of the Council says that she always appreciates the trips she makes to the Parliament, so it is rather extraordinary that she failed during her speech to respond to any of the proposals of Parliament for the IGC.
This rather reinforces the press reports, which give cause for concern, that the European Council has chosen a narrow agenda for the IGC and a merely voluntary charter.
If that is so, it says a lot about the way the Union is squaring up for the challenge of enlargement.
An IGC that failed to amend the way the treaties can be revised in future and in policy sectors to soften them would be an IGC that threatened to paralyse the Union when it tries to modernise itself following the accession of new Member States.
An IGC that failed to grant the citizen improved access to the European Court means a charter will be more of a public relations exercise than a powerful re-definition of European citizenship.
And a Union that is frightened to reinforce its liberal and parliamentary character will be an unattractive Union for the acceding Member States and an unreliable player upon the world stage.
Where Europe stops should not be a question of geography but of liberal values and democratic practices, clearly defined and brightly illuminated so that the candidate countries know where the European journey will bring them.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, in addition to those issues already mentioned here, we are expecting - and someone has already referred to this - the Helsinki Summit to promote protection of the environment and to at last place environmental protection at the heart of Union action.
We must now take a definite step forward on this issue, as we know how difficult it has been to put a stop to negative developments with regard to the environment, and we are expecting determination and concrete results from you in the areas of business, industry and agriculture.
As regards the economy in general, the current struggle to harmonise indirect taxation is certainly an illustrative example of how we will not make any headway in this area if we insist on unanimity.
I have followed Mrs Halonen' s battle with the City of London bankers, and I believe that there will be no end to this struggle until we can decide the issue of taxation by means of a qualified majority.
This will therefore be an important task for the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference.
Otherwise we will be leaving questions of taxation for the markets to decide, and that is something we surely do not want.
The subject that will surely live on after the Helsinki Summit is, however, concrete decisions on a common security arrangement.
I would like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council specifically as you very laudably raised the point that civil and military crisis management complement one another and they should be examined and decided on together.
The European Union does indeed have such an advantage, compared, for example, with NATO.
The European Union is, after all, a civil organisation, and if it now develops a military crisis management capacity, we can also trust it to consider the wisdom that says it is always better to prevent crises rather than try to calm things down through the use of force.
We can resort to that when all else has failed.
You mentioned that for civil crisis management we need the police: I would like to add that other ordinary professional groups, such as psychologists and social workers, as well as plumbers and builders, can be needed in non-military crisis management.
Our group was most satisfied when it heard recently that High Representative Xavier Solana had started to look into a parliamentary initiative for the establishment of civil crisis management troops.
Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you mentioned a Millennium Declaration: it seems the Council has also been bitten by the millennium bug.
You have spoken in favour of transparency, but this is surely one of the most closely guarded state secrets there is.
So perhaps you could give us a tiny hint about what kind of tracks we will be leaving at the millennium celebrations.
Mr President, we have heard a great deal about this new enlargement strategy, which Mr Prodi has also proposed to us in the past.
Some aspects of it are appealing and sound, some are threatening.
Mr Prodi was not in the least convincing when it came to the following question: is political unification the price for the new strategy? We are particularly worried about this.
We are worried that this strategy will somehow lead to a twin-track Europe - i.e. the 15 versus the rest - and that many aspects of unification are being sidelined.
The second reason this worries us is on account of the Intergovernmental Conference: there is an air of vagueness and stubbornness about it and its narrow agenda only addresses procedural issues.
What about the political issues, what we might call the intergovernmental economic management of EMU, Mr President; in other words, what about political intervention?
What about the common policy on unemployment, or on employment for that matter? Are these not issues which are relevant to unification, issues which concern the very people from whom the Union is apparently distancing itself?
The third issue is Turkey.
Do the Council and the Commission know exactly what Turkey wants?
We are convinced by numerous declarations that some people in Turkey just want 'symbolic recognition' , purely for internal reasons, and do not take their future in Europe seriously.
That is no good to anyone, either in Europe or in Turkey.
If we want to make ourselves clear and if we want to stop bandying words and leading Turkey up the garden path, then we should send it a signal which says that, of course, Turkey will not be discriminated against, that goes without saying; however, we need to be clear as to what Turkey' s future within Europe will actually entail.
We need a material policy which Turkey can verify and which allows it to head along the right path: the path towards the rule of law, good neighbourliness and peaceful coexistence, as well as towards a withdrawal from military operations everywhere, especially in Cyprus and on the Kurdish question.
Mr President, all Members of the European Union can take solace from the fact that the European Union economy is performing well and that we have permanent democratic structures operating in all our respective jurisdictions.
This is not the case for all countries in Europe at this time and that is why I welcome the efforts of the Finnish Government to pursue the adoption of a strategy on the Western Balkans at the forthcoming Helsinki Summit.
A permanent stabilisation of the region is in the interests of the European Union as a whole.
The European Union and the Member States together constitute the most important donors in the region and besides humanitarian aid, the region has received this year EU aid amounting to EUR 2,100 m.
We support democratic change in Yugoslavia and the European Union has rightly started to implement pilot projects based on the energy-for-democracy initiative.
EU enlargement will be another central theme at the Helsinki Summit.
During the Finnish Presidency, accession negotiations have been opened in respect of seven more chapters of talks.
These concern EMU, social policy and employment, the free movement of capital, the free movement of services, taxation, energy, transport, all of which are very demanding social and economic sectors.
I am particularly pleased to see that the chapter dealing with energy has now commenced.
I say this because the safety of nuclear plants in Eastern and Central Europe has been a cause for great concern in recent years, and will continue to be.
The Union cannot hide from the naked fact that the EU itself, together with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, will have to play a key role in terms of financial contributions and technical support to make safe all these nuclear reactors sooner rather than later.
We all know that the enlargement process cannot take place unless there is some internal reform in the decision-making processes within the EU.
The Presidency is independently preparing a comprehensive report on questions to be examined at the IGC and on the various options for resolving them.
The deadline being set down for the next IGC is very ambitious indeed.
I support working towards reaching agreement by the end of next year, but equally we must not, and should not, hurry possible fundamental reforms to existing EU treaties without due consideration and evaluation.
Mr President, I am, of course, only speaking on behalf of the Italian Radical Members.
We understand that the Council is disgracefully preparing to exclude the European Parliament from the Intergovernmental Conference and, above all, that it is preparing to ensure that the conference will only tackle three items related to the improvement of the functioning of the institutions, thereby leaving that incomprehensible house of cards known as the Treaty of the Union entirely intact.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and the Commission, today the Union is an institution which does not respect the minimum parameters of democracy and the Rule of Law, and for us Radicals, European federalists, advocates of the United States of Europe as envisaged by Altiero Spinelli, it is difficult to consider the minor - and they really are minor - reforms on the agenda as real progress.
Of course, we are utopians and you are realists, such realists that the Berlin Wall has been down for ten years, and ten years on we are still unable to enlarge eastwards, just as we were unable to intervene to stop the genocide, first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo.
This is because the European Union' s strength is increasingly bureaucratic power, a pervasive bureaucracy that desires to take control of everything, under the ideological illusion that the law and the parliamentary process are obstacles that needlessly slow down reform.
I believe that Parliament should not be satisfied with just asking to participate in proceedings at the conference, such as the work on drafting a Charter of Fundamental Rights, but that it should demand the right to be able to act as a real parliament and it should demand that its right to decide independently on its own seat be restored at the Intergovernmental Conference so that it is not forced to work with its secretariat spread between three different locations.
This could be a first tangible step towards allowing Parliament to be a real parliament.
In fact, there is no doubt about the agenda for the Summit.
It will be planning the Intergovernmental Conference with a view to the enlargement of the European Union.
A drastic extension to the Union' s powers is on the agenda.
These are the crucial building blocks for a United States of the European Union, that is to say for a real federal State.
There is one significant point I want to concentrate on in my speech, namely the Commission' s remark in its contribution for the Summit to the effect that, if the political will is sufficiently strong, it will be possible to conclude the planned Intergovernmental Conference successfully before the end of the year 2000.
One wonders whose political will are we talking about? Earlier, I heard one speaker say that we must be careful not to lose our citizens.
Yes, but is that not putting the cart before the horse? Is it not our citizens who govern our society, or is it ourselves, sitting here and fashioning democracy?
What kind of absurdity is this?
If the people of Europe were to be asked whether they wanted the kind of empire-building that is on the agenda, extremely different answers would be obtained.
We have asked this question in Denmark, for example.
On the few occasions we did ask the people - and we also asked the French people in 1992 - we received an answer indicating very serious public reservations about such a development. But our citizens are not being asked, and my advice to this Intergovernmental Conference, before the empire-building gets too well under way, is: ask the people of Europe whether they want developments to take this course.
I personally am sure of the answer.
This is something they do not want.
We have already lost our citizens, as may be very clearly seen from the results and the turnout at the last elections to this Parliament.
Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications.
I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term.
But one problem calls for immediate resolution.
I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors.
An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown.
It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin.
Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia' s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000.
Obviously they recognised the risk.
Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise.
Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.
Mr President, Mrs Halonen, Mr Prodi, we Finns know that we do not give thanks when there are good grounds for doing so, but we are quick to criticise.
I will surprise the Finnish representatives of the country to hold the presidency by saying that the Finnish Presidency can already now be termed, in the positive sense, historic.
At the Summit conference in Tampere, we included internal and police affairs among Community issues in an attempt to increase citizens' security.
The fight against organised crime, above all against the spread of drugs, will become more effective as the decisions are implemented.
At Tampere, we decided to draft a Charter of Fundamental Rights, in which the European Parliament will also be fully involved.
The meeting at Helsinki will deal with joint crisis management and the resources to be allocated to it, along with a timetable for this joint action.
According to a new opinion poll, this enjoys the support of a clear majority in my country.
This step towards a common foreign and defence policy, in close cooperation with NATO, is an important part of civil, economic and political crisis management.
The Intergovernmental Conference, at which next year will be decided the institutional changes that are required within the Community as a condition for enlargement, will have its roots in, and receive its agenda from, Helsinki.
At Helsinki, the status of the new applicant countries will also be decided, which means that the artificial division in Eastern and Central Europe into better and poorer candidates will end.
But is our own house in order at present, and what must the people of those countries trying to join the Community think about this patent protectionism, which undermines the basic work of the Community in the economic sector?
What measures might be imposed in time on their relatively low-income citizens and on their companies competing in the Community? For example, Spain still holds back from the all-important creation of the European limited company, the United Kingdom safeguards City jobs by refusing to accept the harmonisation of taxation even as regards the taxation of capital, France would rather go to the Community court than liberalise its electricity market as required by Union legislation, the German Chancellor breaks all the rules of the market economy and rescues a construction company on the brink of bankruptcy in order to gain political kudos in his home country, and the beef war against England continues far beyond the requirements of health.
How can we be contemplating enlargement if we are still fighting in the current EU area in a manner that goes against the rules of the Single Market? European competitiveness is not strong now either, the markets in the Community are not functioning correctly and the process whereby differences in consumer goods prices in the EMU area would be evened out has ground to a halt.
My examples in no way mean that I exclude the possibility of the rules being broken in my country as well.
I only wish to say that the future aims in Helsinki are good ones, but our own European house must also be put in order in accordance with the rules of the Union.
Mr President, there are two particularly important issues to be debated at the Helsinki Summit: Union enlargement and setting the IGC in motion.
As we adopted the broad resolution on the IGC in the previous part-session at Strasbourg, we should have focused this time mainly on Union enlargement.
Unfortunately, the joint resolution drafted by the groups only contains a few paragraphs on enlargement.
The group of the European Liberal Democrats has tabled some amendments that would complement and improve the jointly prepared draft.
We hope that the Commission and the Council will draft an overall strategy, in which enlargement of the Union and its future reforms might be linked to a broader pan-European scenario.
In our opinion, we should consider various models of differentiated integration and try to achieve an ever-developing, concentrically conceived Union, in which there would be a federal core and a less integrated outer perimeter.
We furthermore propose that the Union should use the European Council and the OSCE as forums for pan-European cooperation.
We hope there will be support for our proposal.
Mr President, I welcome the fact that the Commission has made a long overdue move towards revision of the enlargement strategy.
But that should not blind us to the fact that the enlargement strategy has still not actually been revised in certain areas, namely with regard to aid, transparency and parity.
There is still no public debate in these countries, no social dialogue, no involvement at regional or local level; what we take for granted cannot happen there because the EU instruments do not allow it.
I would also like to point out how important it is for the presidency to inject new life into this forum with a new European conference and to involve these future EU members equally in the new configuration of the European Union.
This applies both to institutional reforms and to the common objective of meeting the Kyoto objectives.
Mr President, the European Council of 10 and 11 December 1999 in Helsinki will launch the next Intergovernmental Conference intended to revise the EC Treaty with a view to enlargement. However, a minimalist agenda appears to have been set for this IGC, basically limited to the three points left open by the Treaty of Amsterdam: composition of the Commission, weighting of votes in Council and a further extension of qualified majority voting.
This agenda will not in any way help to solve the EU' s problems in terms of enlargement which is therefore likely to be undertaken under the worst institutional conditions.
We certainly understand the Council' s dislike of the shameless attempts by the Commission in recent months to force through, along the lines of the Dehaene report, the idea of another major federalist leap forward.
On the other hand, the Council is now accepting the inclusion on the agenda of a proposal of the same type, namely the extension of qualified majority voting. This was not even envisaged by the Amsterdam Protocol on the institutions, and appeared only in an annexed statement of three Member States.
This proposal, inspired by the idea of a standardised and standardising Europe, is by no means the solution which will allow Europe to operate with 27 members or more.
In our opinion, if the Council really wants to carry out innovative work, it should ditch the Commission' s proposals and ignore the Amsterdam leftovers. It should put just one subject on the negotiating table, namely decision making in an enlarged Union.
This one subject would mean having to jointly consider three consequences which are logically linked. These are qualified majority voting in certain cases, the enshrinement of the Luxembourg compromise in all cases and increased flexibility in cooperation according to a differentiated scale.
In this way, we would have to consider what really brings us together, without blindly accepting the acquis communautaire as a taboo area, and how the common institutions will operate in a Union which uses this differentiated scale.
If we do not make this effort to change, if we hold on to rigid ideas like limpets to a rock, either enlargement will fail or the Union will be swept away. It is our choice.
Mr President, the Helsinki Summit would like clarity on the matter.
The European Union must ensure that the enlargement process is not slowed down because institutional reforms have not taken place within the Union.
The European Commission' s transparency concerning candidate countries should be adopted by the European Summit.
What will a Union comprising more than 25 Members actually look like? Moreover, Turkey requires special treatment in the accession strategy.
It also remains unclear what will change for Turkey now that this State is being treated as a candidate country, although there is absolutely no question of accession taking place as yet.
The agenda for the IGC in 2000 must list more items than the three leftovers from Amsterdam.
The attitude regarding the accession process displayed by people within candidate countries remains worrying.
In this respect, it is important to develop a clear information strategy.
In fact, the same applies just as much to public opinion within the EU Member States.
Otherwise, the value of an enlarged Union will remain vague to the average European citizen.
The composition of the European institutions must be changed in good time.
It is hoped that the Summit will draw up a schedule for this.
Mr President, as former rapporteur on the enlargement strategy I of course welcome with open arms the new proposals submitted to the Council by the Commission once and for all to eliminate the unfortunate dichotomy between candidate countries, once and for all.
Also, I could not agree more with the reason given in this respect.
We used exactly the same reason for promoting the so-called "Regatta model" which did a great deal more justice to the own merits and efforts of the countries that wanted to join the European Union.
Indeed, if we say to the most developed of the candidate countries: you are already in really, then they will sit back and no longer put in the same effort.
We witnessed this in the case of the Czech Republic: policy stagnated.
Other less developed countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania, will be discouraged and will lose the backing of the people for hard-line measures.
Thankfully, this bizarre division into two groups is also being rescinded.
I highly commend the Council, in anticipation that is, for the fact that it is going to implement these changes and this strategy in accordance with the original Parliament position.
It is extremely important that the European Parliament puts its own house in order too.
We need a swift victory during the Intergovernmental Conference in 2000.
We need to start reforming our institutions ourselves, to democratise ourselves.
We require candidate countries to develop their institutions and ensure that they operate democratically.
Imagine if we did not need to meet these requirements ourselves. I am, therefore, extremely taken aback by what Mr Van den Berg, from the [Dutch] Labour Party, wrote in a letter published recently which stated, in so many words, that the Union' s reform should no longer be a prerequisite for enlargement.
How can it not be? I am extremely pleased that the leaders in the socialist group here do not subscribe to this view.
Indeed, only if one does not operate with the best of intentions for the European Union can one say that we do not need to put our own house in order.
We could easily offer the new Member States a house which will turn into a heap of rubble.
They are entitled to more.
They are entitled to democratically functioning institutions within the EU, of which they want to become members and which can take effective decisions.
We should not offer them anything less.
Anyone who wants to focus only on the EU' s achievements as a free trade zone should just continue making this type of proposal.
The reproach implicit in his letter that the Union actually regulates far too much at national, regional and local level, is also striking.
Only hardened supporters of Mrs Thatcher talk in this way about decentralisation of Union policy.
It is genuinely not the case that we rob national, regional and local governments of duties which belong there.
Quite the opposite, in fact; subsidiarity is held in very high esteem here.
Anyone who denies this is making a mockery of our work.
In my opinion, all Member States should make a proper and sound contribution to the public debate on the European Union and we can bring this about, for example, by ensuring that insignificant issues which take us away from the real issues dealt with by the European Union are abandoned, the type of issues raised by the entire delegation brought by Mr Van den Berg.
I applaud the fact that we are going to develop a European Security and Defence Policy without weakening transatlantic relations and the link with NATO.
I am extremely happy that we both, that is Mr Hänsch and I, also clearly agreed on this point, highlighting nevertheless that the European Union really prefers non-military means.
This is simply a fact.
But we also know that non-military means and diplomatic means often only really work if a credible, military threat is present in the background.
I think that as far as this is concerned, we have learnt our lesson.
The European Union has been dangerous because it was unable to split sovereign power in terms of security and defence policy.
This is now changing, fortunately.
Mr President, I herewith wish the Council the best of luck with the proposals we are submitting and I hope that the Council will, in good time, listen to the European Parliament regarding these other issues as well.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Europe has undergone substantial change over the last ten years.
The development that began with the turning point in autumn 1989 has reached a stage of controlled progress, thanks to the determined policies of the European Union.
We have laid down clear guidelines for Europe' s development, but there is work still to be done.
The Intergovernmental Conference, the reality of a common foreign and security policy and the controlled realisation of enlargement are matters that have to be thoroughly prepared for, both in the applicant countries and in the European Union.
These areas form an important whole on the agenda of the Helsinki European Council and, as has been said here, this whole is so dynamic that if everything succeeds, the Helsinki meeting will be an historic event.
The importance of these matters means that it is vital that Parliament also debates the issue thoroughly.
We are now in a situation where, for the first time, full consideration must be given to the Treaty of Amsterdam in a meeting of the European Council.
The President-in-Office of the Council' s excellent speech fully covered the questions and challenges of a common security and defence policy for the Union.
We should point out that the Helsinki Summit will focus on the European Union' s policy on the northern dimension and hence bring about more solid tools of stability and security for the northern part of Europe.
When we speak of security, peace and stability in Europe, we should not forget, however, the factors that have an impact on internal security in society.
A respect for fundamental rights and aspirations towards social equality are the best defence policy for ensuring social stability.
The European employment policy and the guidelines on employment for the year 2000 to be discussed at Helsinki as a part of that policy still belong at the top of the Union' s agenda.
The defence of democracy and the prevention of extremism are the basis of social justice, which means, among other things, combating unemployment.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere congratulations to the country to hold the presidency for having succeeded, with no amendments to regulations, this has not yet been possible, in clearly increasing transparency in the decision-making process in the European Union and especially, in the European Council.
Hopefully, future countries to hold the presidency will carry on the good work.
Mr President, my remarks will concern security aspects of today' s debate.
Members of the House may not be aware of an ill-judged intervention into national politics by the Secretary-General of NATO today.
Lord Robertson just recently attacked as isolationist the Scottish National Party' s policy concerning NATO membership.
That policy, I should tell you, is equivalent in effect to the stance of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and also Ireland, though the occasion of Lord Robertson's intervention was Ireland's accession to the Partnership for Peace Programme.
I hope that the President-in-Office of the Council would deplore, as I do, a party political intervention by the Secretary-General of NATO, the logical implication of which is an attack on the defence policy of Finland and other Member States.
For the record, I should like to make it clear that, in common with all our colleagues in the Green European Free Alliance, we in the SNP are committed to the idea of collective security in Europe and welcome developments the Council will pursue to this end.
But we are rootedly opposed to the maintenance of nuclear weapons in Scottish coastal waters, or coastal waters anywhere in Europe, or the land of Europe.
This is a determining factor for defence policy as far as we are concerned, and I do not for a moment imagine that Ireland is in the process of developing a policy aimed at giving hospitality to nuclear weapons in their waters.
Indeed, Mr Collins assured me that this has nothing to do with NATO membership.
I hope that in developing our crisis management policy, we in Europe will think carefully as to where, if anywhere, nuclear weapons belong in it.
I do not think they belong at all.
Mr President, here, in this Chamber, I would like to express strong concern and, if I may say so, some pessimism regarding the developments that are taking shape regarding the forthcoming Summit.
Parliament has expressed a very clear position.
It has voiced the hope that some major institutional reforms will be unalterably implemented before enlargement takes place if we do not want Europe to turn into a large area of free trade and nothing more, where regulations and internal rules that are now obsolete leave it distinctly incapable of making decisions; it has also stated that decisions on majority voting and membership of the committees are not sufficient to give fresh impetus and new strength to Europe, but that some other avenues should be taken, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and certain other elements that should have united the whole of the great European movement: all this, of course, must be in full respect for the nations, their feelings, their history and their traditions, which I consider to be extremely important.
However, what I think I have understood - since we are not blind - is that at the forthcoming conference, caution and realism are likely to prevail over audacity and courage.
But at an historic time such as this, when we either have the courage to take a giant step forwards or else risk being condemned to a lengthy period of impotency, I think that audacity and courage count for more than realism.
I therefore extend an invitation to all those who believe in these goals, in these objectives, to be firm and determined, and we have here with us President Prodi who has declared this several times, and I know he believes it.
I also invite the European Parliament to meet immediately after Helsinki - if, as I fear, the conclusion will be progress, but too limited - and with a very open mind and great courage to take responsibility for all of its decisions, saying and thinking, as at other times in European history, that Parliament has great possibilities and a significant role to play.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to confine myself to two comments regarding the Helsinki Summit.
The first concerns the Intergovernmental Conference.
It seems clear from what the Minister has said that the Cologne conclusions will not be the only three items on the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference.
In my opinion, it is only right that issues relating to common foreign policy, defence and the economy should be discussed.
However, it would be wrong just to stick to these few issues and ignore matters relating to the future structure and legal identity of the European Union, or social and cultural issues.
I should like, at this juncture, to point out that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is of the utmost importance, and we should ensure that it evolves into a binding text and does not just remain a simple declaration of intent.
My second comment concerns the position of Turkey.
We must tread very carefully on this issue at the Helsinki Summit, because this ties in closely with the fact that Turkey has yet to demonstrate in its policies that it has understood that close relations with Europe depend on its fulfilling certain conditions, as laid down in EU texts and decisions.
The question which arises here concerns the extension of the borders of Europe, especially with enlargement in the offing, and of whether or not the borders are to be extended to include Turkey.
These are, in my view, important issues which we must bear in mind.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, I would also like to express my satisfaction with the strategy, which is generally sensible and coherent as far as enlargement is concerned.
However, although this vision, which is held both by the Council and the Commission on the issue of enlargement, may be ambitious, the same cannot be said about the content of the forthcoming IGC.
In fact, what we have on the table now is merely a continuation of what could not be achieved in Amsterdam.
I would say there is "plenty of ambition for enlargement and yet very little ambition for a revision of the Treaty of the Union itself" .
There is even greater cause for concern when what we want to revise, that is the famous institutional triangle, is defended on the basis of an argument for efficiency and not on the basis of an overall vision of the European project.
I do not think that anyone will be happy if the Intergovernmental Conference at the end of 2000 results in the Commission or the Council taking decisions in two hours which they previously took in five, six or seven.
The project of European construction does not rest on the criterion of efficiency but on the criterion of cohesion and what we all hope is that, in Helsinki, a political agenda is set, and not a technical agenda with complicated political consequences.
In this regard, I would like to welcome the Portuguese Presidency' s willingness to grant the European Parliament' s representatives at this IGC the same status that will be given to the Commission as far as the personal representatives of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs are concerned.
It also appears important that we take advantage of the Portuguese Presidency' s willingness to have the IGC start not in March but, if possible, as early as January.
As for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is important that it is able not only to extend the rights that are already laid down in Charters and Treaties but also that it recognises rights in the social and economic spheres and, above all, that it is able to be innovative and creative in the area of new rights concerning environmental issues and the protection of consumer rights.
I shall now address a third point to which President Barón Crespo has already referred, concerning employment issues.
The Union cannot only attempt to deal with employment issues when we are going through periods of economic slowdown.
Our policies should be active, not reactive.
We must take advantage of the current economic cycle and of the declaration that the Finnish Presidency will be making on the Millennium and the new information society, so that we find a creative way of recording sustained growth and so that the goal of full employment is actually achieved and does not remain a rhetorical phrase.
Finally, Mr President, I also support you in your intention to have the strategic lines that were laid down in the Tampere Council conclusions approved, specifically in the fight against drug trafficking, and I hope that the Portuguese Presidency will be willing to adopt its own action plan in the next six-monthly term.
) Mr President, it is a real pity that the Intergovernmental Conference will not be considering certain essential elements on the area of freedom, security and justice, none of which can be achieved at the expense of the others.
I also regret that our joint motion for a resolution does not mention the problems linked to Eurodac, even though the Council has just announced, contrary to the Treaties, that this body should remain purely intergovernmental.
This would, of course, exclude the European Parliament and the Court of Justice from any control in this area.
Similarly, faced with the multiplication of information systems such as Europol and Eurodac, this House should have repeated its demand for an independent commission on data processing and the protection of privacy in order to preserve our individual freedoms, in addition to democratic and judicial control.
The idea of citizenship is also most notably absent from this text.
Yet this is a subject of vital importance. It is a cornerstone of the negotiations on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and also on the constitutionalisation of the Union.
When the Union is enlarged, it is this citizenship which must be at the heart of our European project in order to ensure human and sustainable development.
To conclude, we must realise that such a pale and insipid text cannot satisfy the people of Europe.
We must take care that we do not distance ourselves too much from their aspirations if we are to build a fairer and more democratic Europe with a greater sense of solidarity.
Mr President, I wish the Finnish Presidency every success at the Helsinki Summit as this will conclude a range of important work undertaken during its term.
With regard to the issues mentioned by the President-in-Office of the Council, the shape of the Union following enlargement raises no problems for this House, for the Commission proposal or for the Council of Ministers.
On the issue of the Intergovernmental Conference, such an optimistic situation is not appropriate in view of the tour by the Finnish Prime Minister. It would be a pity to miss this opportunity of giving a boost to the project of European integration and we will regret not having taken due advantage of this occasion.
I completely agree with Mrs Halonen' s assessment that it is absolutely essential to reaffirm the international presence of the European Union. This is particularly true in the fields of security and defence to which the Finnish Presidency - and this can be said with legitimate pride - has given a decisive boost with this historic meeting of Defence and Foreign Ministers.
This is the first time that this has occurred in the history of the European Union.
Furthermore, we must stress the need to consolidate the achievements made at the Tampere Summit, referred to by the previous speaker, on an area of freedom, security and justice.
As mentioned by the President-in-Office of the Council, it is essential that we confirm and prepare the work of the Portuguese Presidency with regard to employment.
We are at an all-time low in the short history of the euro so the Helsinki European Council should devote some time to the issue of the external representation of the euro zone.
Mrs Halonen, you referred to the need for us to promote a more open, democratic and transparent European integration project.
I noted with satisfaction the comment made by the President of the Commission on the presence of the European Parliament at the Intergovernmental Conference, but I would like you to say this as well.
We cannot achieve a more open, transparent and democratic Europe if the European Parliament is not fully involved in the work of the IGC.
I hope and pray that the European Council in Helsinki can give us a Europe which is more judicious, more united and much more community-spirited, and therefore much less intergovernmental.
Mr President, I have taken the floor to express, first of all, my surprise at what the President-in-Office of the Council said about the Intergovernmental Conference: Mrs Halonen did not even mention the European Parliament' s resolution of 18 November and the proposals it contains on the agenda of the Conference.
They are serious and justified proposals, not escapist flights of fancy or vain utopian desires.
I do not think it is right to take this attitude towards an important stance adopted by Parliament.
We already know everything about the three leftovers from Amsterdam: all that remains is to make the choices that were not made during the previous conference.
We should take a year just to do this.
May I say that it is ridiculous to uphold this.
Take heed: if the Council, if the governments do not open up the agenda of the Helsinki Summit to essential institutional issues that are now more than ready to be addressed, the debate on enlargement will lack credibility and we will show ourselves incapable of having a far-sighted view of the development of all aspects of the Union.
President Prodi, I do not understand what the preparatory work outside the Intergovernmental Conference you spoke of should be.
You seemed to be entrusting to this strange forum some of the issues that were put forward here by the Commission on 10 November.
I hope that you will keep all those Commission proposals on the agenda and the conference approach unchanged, and will contribute in this way to a positive outcome of the Helsinki Council.
Mr President, I think that President Prodi did well in his intervention, all of which we should agree with, to say that enlargement is the main and essential point for Helsinki.
Parliament had already been stressing for some time the inadequacy of the approach adopted by the Commission and the Council on enlargement.
I think it was a question of a strategic and political error, the consequences of which were fortunately limited by the Commission' s change of mind, even though, I must say, it is sad to think that perhaps it was only the war which we experienced on our doorstep that pushed them towards this new strategy.
It is right to begin negotiations with all the applicant states, but there is no doubt that we must differentiate between these countries, given that the levels of adaptation to Europe vary greatly between them.
Of course, it seems difficult to talk about accession dates, even if it would be useful, very useful, in order to facilitate public opinion in the countries concerned, given that it is increasingly obvious that it is a risk: negotiations that are too lengthy may cool enthusiasm, both in Member States as well as applicant states, as shown by the recent opinion polls carried out in Poland and as I personally saw in this country from where I returned yesterday.
We would therefore lose an historic opportunity, to quote President Prodi again.
I am absolutely convinced that the accession of a new Member State must be the result of a broad consensus between political groups but, above all, the majority of the populations concerned should be in agreement.
Therefore, we need - and this is my invitation to Parliament - to draw particular attention to the information campaigns which keep support for the European option in these countries at a high level.
In this respect, I think that the PHARE programme may be the appropriate instrument, and I therefore think that it must be consolidated precisely in this area.
Mr President, allow me to pick up where my colleague Mr Gawronski left off, namely the acceptance of Europe among the people of the various countries seeking to join the European Union.
It is not only Poland; other countries, such as the Czech Republic, also keep their enthusiasm for the European Union in check.
I should like to point out that the Commission' s progress report on the Czech Republic refers to a medium-sized town in the Czechia where a fence has been built down a street to separate the Czechs from the Romas.
That is hardly progress.
I have been there twice, I have spoken to the mayor, I said the fence must go and what happened? The tabloid press of Europe is calling this fence a wall, as if it were not only the Berlin wall but the great wall of China.
It has been so blown up that the people there are, understandably, extremely angry because they assume that there is sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander in the European Union.
We have one set of rules for ourselves, and we are far from whiter than white, and we have another set of rules for applicant countries and we expect everything of them which we ourselves fail to deliver.
When we in the European Union take a look around us, at ethnic conflicts and terrorist attacks, I think that, if the boot were on the other foot, for example, if the Czech Republic were already in the Union, then it would say to a certain Member State: friend, if you do not get your house in order, then you must wait another twenty years before you become a Member State.
I simply mean we should make sure that the people are not put off.
The point is, we do not need to get on with the politicians in the applicant countries, but with the people.
That is all that counts.
Mr President, allow me to begin by congratulating the Finnish Presidency on what has, on the whole, been a good six months.
I should like to thank you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, for enabling the EU' s foreign and security policy, including its military capability, to be discussed so thoroughly today.
The EU can now, within the framework of the Amsterdam Treaty, increase its credibility where commitment to freedom and peace in Europe are concerned.
The Helsinki Summit is, in that respect, a test for Europe' s present leadership.
Is there the will and the courage to get together to formulate, and give depth to, a policy which enables the people of Europe to see that there is force and not only words behind the desire to prevent human catastrophes such as that in Kosovo?
Just as important a test of leadership is that involved in guaranteeing that the enlargement of the European Union can be carried out with the first new Member States acceding to the Union during the present term of office.
In Helsinki, the preliminary values are being laid down for the Intergovernmental Conference which is to solve any remaining questions of power.
We must have a European Union with the power to take decisions.
Wishes for the future ought not, however, to be allowed to outstrip the historic task of taking advantage now of the historical opportunity to unify the whole of Europe.
The Finnish Presidency and the Summit must hand over the baton to Portugal with one unequivocal goal: to conclude the Intergovernmental Conference in Paris with a view to making an open, cooperative Europe, united in a common purpose, into a reality and one which will make place great demands upon leadership, the capacity for change and the willingness to quarrel less over national and short-term interests.
Mr President, the European Parliament will summarise this debate on Helsinki in a resolution.
As always, it will be a compromise resolution.
There is nothing wrong with that, it is the nature of the beast.
But, in this case, I fear that the willingness of the joint authors of this resolution to reach a compromise has gone too far.
I am not referring so much to what is said, although I do have, to a greater or lesser extent, some difficulty with that, such as on the subject of Turkey.
My criticism applies mainly to what is not said in the resolution.
We set too much store by the principle of hope and too little on hard facts as far as enlargement is concerned.
The Commission refers again and again in its status reports on the level of adaptation to the acquis communautaire to the fact that candidate countries, and this includes both the first wave and the second wave, are very slow in transposing and adapting to the acquis in numerous areas, such as social affairs, the environment and energy, as well as in human rights and living democracy.
That is not enough.
We should not be content to hope that a death sentence in Turkey will perhaps not be carried through.
We should not be content to hope that sometime, somewhere, what are clearly unsafe nuclear power stations will perhaps be closed.
We should not pretend that the extremely long transition periods which, in the 1980s, did not cause any real problems, may not cause any problems to the internal market.
Do we really want to accept transition periods of fifteen years or more for basic freedoms in the movement of people and in the service sector and still keep our borders open?
We are in favour of enlargement; it is the answer to the question of the future of Europe, which is precisely why we must speak a clear language, even in compromise resolutions.
Mr President, it is my privilege to speak again in a debate with Mrs Halonen.
In fact, my first ever speech in this Chamber was back in July when I commended the Finnish Presidency on giving priority to information society and its work programme.
Tonight, as we draw towards the close of that presidency, I want to commend the Finnish Presidency for working on this, but also to express some disappointment that it has not made more of the opportunities.
Mrs Halonen only just managed to fit in a mention of information society - I think right in the last sentence of her speech - and yet, according to a paper that I received from the Commission last week, we are to have an e-Europe initiative presented at Helsinki, a paper entitled "Information Society for All" .
So far, we have not seen that.
"All" clearly still does not include Members of the European Parliament, so not many people know about it.
Indeed it barely rated a mention in your speech, but I hope that the Council is going to spend some time on this vital topic.
Could I also say on the broader topic of completing the internal market that, during the Finnish Presidency, we have had some very important strategy papers and they actually require a much higher priority than they are receiving in the Community at the moment.
Indeed, the motion for a resolution I saw this morning contained no mention of any internal market or information society initiatives at all, despite the work that has been going on under your Presidency.
I tabled an addendum in the name of my group this morning to include those items and I hope very much it will receive the support of this House.
In conclusion, I also hope that the Finnish Presidency will remind Member governments at the Helsinki Council that creating a single market requires that cross-border takeovers and the restructuring of key industries must be allowed to proceed without political interference by Member governments.
I am sure that Members of this House will know that there is a crucial takeover battle under way at the moment in the telecommunications sector.
I have to say I am disappointed to see that some of the comments by senior politicians, and even Members of the Commission, suggest that the whole philosophy of an internal market has still to be fully accepted.
Mr President, first I will admit that when we tried to meet both the demands of time and adhere to priorities we chose as the basis of talks certain of those issues which we knew would be the most important topics at Helsinki.
Thus, I have touched less in my speech on certain other matters, attention to which has been drawn here quite justifiably.
However, I can reassure and console the Members of the European Parliament and say that these issues have not been forgotten.
Firstly, as regards the question of employment, we regard this as very important, and we have made preparations, as I said in my speech, to ensure that history' s first Summit conference on employment is a real success during Portugal' s presidential term.
The special theme in matters of employment during the Finnish Presidency has been, inter alia, the status of the aged.
There was an informal meeting of the Employment and Social Affairs Council on this subject, and we have also had a conference at ministerial level specifically on the topic of equality.
In addition, we have raised the issue of the information society in the area of employment.
A Council resolution was adopted on 29 November regarding employment in the information society and the social dimension.
I will give my replies in a slightly different order from the speakers, but as Mr Harbour seems to be here still, I will say to him too that the Commission is presenting its extensive information society initiative to the European Council in Helsinki.
The document will only be published on December 8.
The issue is to be debated properly at the special Summit meeting in Portugal.
The main focus of information society matters at Helsinki will be the consultation between the information society and competitiveness.
This is an angle that has achieved prominence during the Finnish Presidency and will probably now be discussed in connection with issues to do with the economy, employment and competitiveness.
Thus, there is also an intention in the conclusions to speed up the development of a regulated environment for electronic commerce.
During the Finnish presidential term we have made progress in major projects for regulation, but the finishing touches will be undertaken during the next presidential term.
So the results are somewhat better, or I might even venture to say, substantially better than was perhaps evident from my speech.
Then I would like to answer one separate question, which is linked to the subject of enlargement.
With regard to the question of the Roma people, which was raised here, I would like to say for my own part that I think it is right to focus attention on human rights, both generally and, in particular, regarding the rights of minorities, both in the European Union, but especially in those countries seeking membership.
We have had experience of applicant countries during the Finnish presidential term, particularly with regard to the poor treatment of the Roma people, to the extent that large numbers of them have left those countries to apply for asylum.
There are already nearly one thousand of them in Finland, if memory serves.
The country to hold the presidency has not wished to draw the conclusion that the cause of this might only be found in Slovakia, Romania or in some other individual country.
This is a common problem, and, for that reason, we intend to raise the issue, not in connection with enlargement, but as a general part of the Summit conference agenda, that Member States and applicant countries must improve the implementation of the rights of minorities.
The country to hold the presidency is also offering to cooperate in this regard.
Then I will turn to what are actually the main issues.
Firstly, I will say in all honesty, regarding the Intergovernmental Conference, that we are unanimous on the issues omitted from the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Many of us here have tried to suggest that it would take just a little effort to try and solve these problems.
Members of Parliament, they were not omitted from the Treaty of Amsterdam because they would have been minor issues.
They were left out because they were very difficult questions and they have not got any easier in the meantime.
However, a clear definition of the task will give us the chance now to succeed, as will the pressure to ensure the matter is put right.
In addition, I clearly listed for you those issues that are closely connected with these subject areas, and that can possibly be added to the agenda.
The third group is those issues that one or more Member States have raised.
I venture to say that, although Finland is still a young Member State, I am at present one of the oldest foreign ministers in terms of years in office.
There are only a couple of us ministers left who were at the previous Intergovernmental Conference.
At that IGC we gained the support of 12, 13 or 14 Member States in quite a number of areas.
But we did not receive support from the full 15, which would have been required for example for these majority decisions.
In this connection, I am not at all sceptical, but I am realistic with regard to the fact that, if we want to get certain issues through quickly, we have to concentrate on those that are to some extent ready.
Then there is this other process, whereby the big, longer-term plans are addressed.
We can make progress just as soon as we are unanimous on them, but they are not vital with regard to enlargement.
Regarding the participation of the European Parliament, I still cannot say what the solution will be at the Helsinki Summit, but I have said it already once before, and I will say so again, that our experience of their involvement on the previous occasion was a positive one.
This is therefore the position of the country to hold the presidency.
With regard to enlargement, that will be the topic of debate in the last General Affairs Council to be held on 6 December.
At this Council meeting I shall try to put together those elements concerning Turkey that at least will enable us to believe we can make progress.
I have had on-going discussions on this matter with my colleagues.
I am not quite sure whether we will yet be able to achieve unanimity on the subject at the General Affairs Council.
Should there be sufficient unanimity to make a joint decision, the country to hold the presidency can still use the days it has left before the Helsinki Summit to put the finishing touches to the issue.
Our common desire seems to be that the issue should be solved somehow through consensus before the Helsinki Summit and, as the representatives of the country to hold the presidency, we will work hard to achieve a positive solution.
I am grateful for all the comments made regarding the speed of enlargement, the Copenhagen criteria and everything else.
Most of them reflected our opinion very closely when we were preparing the paperwork in the Council of Ministers.
There were fewer remarks about foreign and security policy, but I would like to perhaps comment on one point.
I have not mentioned the northern dimension issue at all this time.
A meeting at ministerial level was held in Helsinki on the issue of the northern dimension, as we promised.
Attendance was poor on the part of the foreign ministers of the other EU Member States - I was the only one there - but certain other ministers were present as well as all those ministers who are involved in the issue of the northern dimension.
The response was very encouraging.
The Commission promised to move things one step further and make an action plan, and thus we achieved what was perceived as the goal relating to the Portuguese presidential term.
I agree with those who have spoken here that, if we increase stability, that, in its own way, increases security in Europe.
With regard once more to enlargement, we have endeavoured to remind the applicant countries, just as has been said here, that we are not accepting new governments as members: we are accepting new countries.
It is very important to say to the governments of applicant countries that they must also involve the opposition and the whole population in their plans, just as has been asked of them.
I have said that the European Union cannot just accept young, well educated males living in cities, but we are taking everyone, including the elderly, those who live in rural areas, the less well-educated and women.
The plans must thus also take account of that.
Hopefully, we shall also be able to speak with them about social cohesion, nuclear safety and security, as well as many other things.
I have tried to convince the applicant countries of these matters by saying that although not all these points will be dealt with at the negotiations, it might just be that they will attract so much attention in the parliaments of Member States that the applicant countries would be assured of swift acceptance if they began to attend to these matters right away, matters that will, in any case, be very important when they eventually become members.
A final word about the IGC: if we acquired a legal character for the European Union at the next IGC many issues would be resolved.
A legal personality, which is a matter that has been raised here in many speeches, was one of the questions that the majority supported but, where, unfortunately, consensus was not forthcoming.
This was just another example of that problem.
Mr President, I have a specific question for the President-in-Office of the Council. What is her opinion on the full participation of the European Parliament at the Intergovernmental Conference?
This is an important question as it is contained in the report approved by this House and is vital to us.
I would be grateful if she could answer this.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in this Chamber I have heard some pessimistic words regarding the forthcoming Summit.
I do not agree at all. It is an extraordinarily important Summit that we - Parliament, Commission and Council Presidency - have prepared very carefully and vigorously, and the challenge of enlargement is an historic challenge of decisive importance.
At Helsinki, enlargement will take root, get going and completely change Europe' s appearance.
I agree with what many of you have said, that we must proceed towards enlargement with gusto and energy, a process which will look at each country' s case closely but seek to prevent them losing faith in us.
Our programme for enlargement is therefore not at all minimalist.
The theory of the 'regatta' , the image of each country running and improving as it does so, is the concept we have favoured.
Along with this, it is clear that we want to see an effective Intergovernmental Conference.
We therefore believe - as Mr Seguro just said - that we must start as soon as possible.
I think that we can and must start in January because there are many areas to be addressed: Amsterdam, issues arising from Amsterdam, cohesion, codecision, the issue of security and defence, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and also the reform of the Treaty.
It is not a minimalist agenda.
Mr Napolitano, I would also like to reassure you regarding the proposal to carry out accompanying preparatory work, and I stress the word accompanying: since the reform of the Treaties involves extremely detailed and special technical aspects, we cannot let ourselves be accused of not having carried out a thorough study and a complete analysis of these aspects.
This is not a postponement: accompanying means that we will start work ourselves and that technical work will be carried out at the same time. This technical work is indispensable in order to avoid any delay in this area that could reduce the effectiveness of our action.
We are starting by closely following the document tabled previously, with firm proposals and also a sense that, after enlargement, we shall be faced with the real issue that must be carefully and attentively defined, with a very far-ranging debate - the nature and borders of Europe.
Many of you have mentioned this, and I have already asked Parliament several times and I am repeating it again now: I think that, alongside the implementation of enlargement - which will definitely take place, since the enlargement process I hope we will decide on in Helsinki will have no room for doubts, problems or hesitation - we will have to open a debate on the nature and shape of Europe, since we are the ones who will have to shape these borders and decide on the nature of Europe. We cannot simply meet the requests of countries asking to join Europe, however legitimate.
Where would these requests end? Why should countries in Asia, for example, not apply?
We will nevertheless be the ones who decide. I could give you a whole list of countries which, basically, would be interested and eager to join Europe, thereby changing its very nature.
Europe is not a customs agreement; it is not an area of free trade.
Europe is a Union of countries, and indeed we have called it the European Union. It is clear, then, that together we must undertake major institutional reform so that we can make positive decisions, while pressing ahead with this debate on the borders and nature of Europe.
To conclude, I would just like to add, in relation to the nuclear power stations, the efforts regarding the Balkans and the social and cultural questions that have been raised here, that we really have studied and analysed these matters thoroughly.
Agreements are in place that lead should to a strategy being developed to close these plants, which will make things safe, while, at the same time, giving these countries the realistic chance to leave their problems behind together.
This is what we are doing and we are therefore setting off for the Summit with a huge challenge and a complex agenda before us.
I would like to thank Parliament for the way that, in recent months, the Commission and Parliament have been able to act in unison as regards these issues.
What we said on the first day we met still stands: our challenge is not one with zero gain but, by cooperation, both Parliament and the Commission will gain from it.
Indeed, I believe that it is our responsibility to bring continuity to Europe' s development, the development of Europe in the long term, not just on a day by day basis.
For this, I think that, apart from these areas, we will have to undertake a debate on tomorrow' s Europe, its borders and its nature, subjects which I have mentioned many times because I believe that this is a great task that we must perform together.
Mr President, I will say again that it has been the opinion of the country to hold the presidency that our experience with regard to the participation of the European Parliament in the previous Intergovernmental Conference was a positive one.
Since then, the Prime Minister of the country to hold the presidency has toured, and continues to tour, the Member States to ask for opinions with regard to this matter, prior to the Summit in Helsinki.
Currently, opinions appear to differ.
Some think this development should go further while others would keep the situation more or less as it is. However, I think that Parliament will retain at least the same rights as it had in the previous IGC.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Statement by the President
Mr Karlsson, the President of the Court of Auditors, who was to present the Court Annual Report, has to leave Brussels at 7 p.m.
Given the way we are proceeding with our agenda, it will not be possible to take this item before then.
It will therefore have to be postponed to another part-session.
The matter will be discussed later by the Conference of Presidents, when it establishes the final draft agenda for the December part-session.
Annual report on human rights
The next item is the Council statement on the annual report on human rights followed by a debate.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission welcomes the publication of the first annual report on human rights.
I think that this publication will strengthen the visibility of the European Union in the field of human rights considerably.
The Commission was actively involved in the drafting of the report and worked closely with both the German and the Finnish Presidencies.
The Commission feels that a stronger balance should be struck between the three pillars of the European Union in future reports, in order to give a more comprehensive overview of the human rights situation at European level.
This report concentrates mainly on questions of common foreign and security policy.
One way of achieving greater balance in the future might be to take a more thematically structured approach focusing, for example, on particularly vulnerable groups, such as women and children, or specific questions, such as the monitoring of elections.
The Commission will, of course, continue to help the Presidency-in-Office to draft these reports.
Finally, I should like to point out that my colleague Chris Patten, who is very sorry that he is unable to be here today due to a foreign policy commitment, and Poul Nielson and I shall issue a communication on the promotion of human rights and democratisation in our external relations.
This communication will be adopted by the Commission in the first half of 2000 and will supplement the Council report on the human rights situation in that it will detail what specific action the Community can take in order to promote human rights in third countries, so that our declarations are backed up by serious, concrete initiatives and support.
Mr President, it is a very great joy that we have at last a report from the Council of Ministers on human rights.
I can remember making this request in December 1979 when the Russian troops were getting together to invade Afghanistan.
For some reason, over these past twenty years the Council of Ministers or the ministers meeting in political cooperation have been unwilling to put together a document.
Now at least we have a document, although I have to say that it is rather thin soup.
The careful balance the Commissioner mentioned needs to be made very carefully, but we need facts and details on how the human rights situation throughout the world is being handled.
I trust that this first document will be just one step along the way towards bringing us together and helping us to tackle human rights.
It has been an abominable year after all.
We have had war, murder, genocide, racism, xenophobia, and I wish we could have had something a little bit more powerful in this document, which was, I have to say, distributed very quickly.
It found itself in our pigeon-holes today and it was there for debate with the human rights forum which the President referred to.
These things are in need of quick action.
At the human rights forum this morning I spoke to one of the President-in-Office' s Finnish colleagues from the Finnish Foreign Ministry, about a particular case mentioned by the European Parliament recently, the case of Alexander Nikitin, a man who is on trial just a few miles away from Helsinki, for high treason.
He is facing the death penalty because he reported on the ecological disaster of nuclear submarines in the Murmansk area.
I take it this matter is of interest to the Finnish Government, but even though I raised this question with a member of the Finnish Foreign Office, we still do not have any information and the man is on trial today, and tomorrow.
I imagine it is familiar to those who are sitting with the Council of Ministers.
I hope someone can tell us something about it.
Mr President, this is, I suppose, the parliament in Europe that takes human rights the most seriously, and we have great possibilities in dealing with countries that violate human rights.
I believe that we have to look much more carefully at this question, to tackle those countries that behave disgracefully; the so-called fingernail-pulling governments need to be taken to task, and the European Parliament must be the institution that takes the lead in making sure that human rights are top of our agenda.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I too welcome this first annual European Union report on human rights.
Obviously, we have had Commission documents and many European Parliament reports in the past, but this is the first time that the Council of Ministers has given us this type of text.
This demonstrates a welcome desire for transparency. It will, I hope, improve the information given to the public on the specific actions carried out between June 1998 and June 1999 and on the instruments and means available to the EU.
My only criticism is that this report is probably over-optimistic.
Inadequacies and grey areas are hardly mentioned.
However, the publication of this document encourages me to look to the near future and the preparation of an EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
This project, which must be part of the IGC' s work and which could be completed by the end of the year 2000, is of major importance for the Union, for all those living within the Union and for the applicant states.
Yet we currently have no guarantee that this text will meet expectations.
In particular, we fear that the European Council and the Council of Ministers have only very limited ambitions, namely to draft a mere declaration without any legal or binding force.
If this were to be the case, the European Union would lose all credibility in its own eyes and in the eyes of the rest of the world.
In addition, there is a concern about the risks of competition and even contradiction between this future Charter and existing texts which have indisputable force.
I am referring, of course, to the Council of Europe' s European Convention on Human Rights.
I hope, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, that the Helsinki Summit will reassure us on all these points.
You are personally well acquainted with these issues.
Mr President, the annual report in question is a welcome and important beginning, and its value is underlined by the fact that independent NGOs were equal partners at the human rights forum which has just ended and which was organised on the initiative of the country holding the presidency.
This is the start of what must become a tradition.
With human rights there is always the question of weighing up different values against one another: 'horizontal tensions' exist between the various human rights.
Since the end of the Cold War they have manifested themselves more dramatically than before in the balance between classic basic freedoms, on the one hand, and collective rights, such as economic, social and cultural rights, on the other.
The development has rapidly taken a direction which will weaken collective rights, which have been characteristic, for example, of the welfare state.
Of all the human rights, however, it is freedom of speech that holds a special position, as without free and independent communication the other human and fundamental rights cannot be established and even serious violations of human rights, such as crimes against humanity, cannot be effectively exposed.
As the President-in-Office of the Council said, reports on violations of human rights are an everyday occurrence.
A free and independent media is also a vital prerequisite of civil society.
For this reason, it would be advisable to accord greater emphasis in human rights monitoring and reporting by the Union to freedom of speech and to safeguarding, improving and monitoring the rights of journalists and their ability to work, for example, by devoting a special chapter or section to this area.
As we develop the Union' s own position on human rights we must, as the Foreign Minister, Mrs Halonen, said, be consistent.
But we must also maintain a balance.
There must be balance between the different types of human rights, the pillars, as mentioned by Mr Verheugen, and the institutions.
The European Union cannot complacently and regardless of others develop its own human rights culture in such a way as to upset the balance.
Mr President, in general terms nobody here dares argue against respect for human rights. We should therefore move from the rhetorical to the practical.
What has happened to the right to work in a Europe with 18 million unemployed and 50 million living in poverty? What has happened to the right to housing, health or education when millions of people are deprived of these?
What has happened to the right of asylum and freedom of movement when countries such as Belgium are expelling gypsies or, just yesterday, fifteen or so Nigerians? The same is true of my country, France, which is refusing to legalise the situation of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, in many cases packed into detention centres, and which is extraditing Basque refugees.
What has happened to the right to life when the armies of Europe agree to participate in bombardments of civilian populations in Serbia or Kosovo? What response have the Member States given to questions from Amnesty International about having violated Article 5 of the Declaration on Human Rights banning torture and ill-treatment with impunity?
Finally, what has happened to human rights when, as is occurring now, the financial markets are allowed to make people redundant, exclude them and pollute them, all in the name of profit and good returns?
Mr President, I must take the opportunity afforded by the presentation of this lengthy report on human rights to highlight the constant violations of these rights which are being committed, on the basis of Stalinist-style legislation, against intellectuals in all fields who dare to give critical or simply independent opinions of the history of the Second World War. The media and the educational world are increasingly obsessed with the tragedy of the concentration camps in the name of interests that have nothing to do with the defence of the victims' memory.
In Europe, there are currently thousands of historians, sociologists, researchers, experts and ordinary people who are being hounded, persecuted, harassed and condemned. Their only crime is to have assessed, in an independent manner, the ever-changing but sometimes hysterical dogmas imposed on them by hired authors benefiting from full official collusion.
In my home town of Lyons, a young historian with no means of support whom I did not know - Mr Plantin is his name - has been sentenced simply because in the bibliography of a scholarly review which he publishes he included works which correct historical errors which no serious historian of whatever persuasion now accepts.
He has been arrested, his computer has been confiscated and each of the usual associations has sued him and extorted large amounts of compensation from him.
His former tutors at university have had to apologise, in a show of loathsome cowardice, for the qualifications which they awarded him.
His printer, a rural craftsman, has also been sentenced.
He was charged under the act on publications corrupting youth, which could usefully be applied in other areas, and under the legislative act brought in by the French Communist Gayssot according to which, for example, the Germans must still be held responsible for the massacre of thousands of Polish officers at Katyn, even though the Soviets have admitted to this.
The magistrates in Lyons who delivered these judgments have simply participated in a witch-hunt.
This is an issue which should be examined by this House, given that it is so keen to guarantee freedom of expression and civil liberties.
Mr President, I would like to answer the question about Mr Nikitin.
His trial is taking place in Russia and some time before the trial got under way, the European Union appealed that the person in question should have a trial that met the proper standards.
This trial is now also being followed by the Finnish representation in St. Petersberg.
We have likewise tried to have an influence on the proceedings through frequent discussions with the Russian authorities.
The EU practice is obviously that we take a position on the action of the court when a decision has been made.
I would like to point out that we have tried to follow the trial in its entirety.
This is one of those examples of issues which we could monitor more in the future, either in terms of subject matter or on a country-by-country basis.
I thank you for the debate thus far, and I will leave our worthy diplomats to follow the rest of it, in which I too would have liked to participate.
Mr President, like the previous speakers, I was going to start by welcoming this initiative from the Finnish Presidency.
It is therefore a pity that the President-in-Office of the Council left in the middle of the debate.
It does not seem right that we cannot have a proper debate when such an important document is presented. All we are going to get now is a continuous monologue without any response from the other party.
In that respect, my words are rather pointless.
However, following on from what was said by the two speakers who came before me - and with whom I disagree - I must say that the fact that Europe, and the European Union in particular, is making human rights its banner - in fact its only banner - is a marvellous thing.
This does not mean that everything is perfect and that there is nothing to correct; indeed, the report says as much.
The text could be improved upon in many respects - from the internal point of view, for instance -and certain paragraphs concerned with racism and xenophobia provide perfect examples of this.
An improvement could also be made by including in the text the EU' s contribution to the fight for human rights in the international sphere.
We are faced with a number of challenges and all of this is mentioned in this document which, I must repeat, is an excellent initiative and constitutes a remarkable inventory. I am only sorry that the President-in-Office of the Council is not present to hear this.
There are various initiatives which we could comment on if we had the time.
I will mention just one in which I think the European Union should be actively involved, namely the establishment of the International Criminal Court which would end the current situation in which the judicial instruments available to us are quite incapable of dealing with international requests for legal proceedings.
There is no doubt, Mr President, that with the tabling of this report, too, the public' s awareness of the importance of the topic of civil and human rights shows that we have taken another step forwards.
We have been considering, over the course of recent months and years, Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the reaffirmation of the importance and role in the European Union of the principles of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights, and also the creation of the International Criminal Court and the need we all feel to give greater authority to Article 7 of the UN Charter in order to guarantee respect for human rights, eliminating any humanitarian intervention from rationales which are not based purely and simply on respect for these rights: all of this tells us that a great deal of progress has been made.
Nevertheless, fifty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we know that no rights are won all in one go and once and for all: I am thinking of Tibet, Burma, Timor and Asian countries where child and women workers are exploited; I am thinking of Kosovo, Chechnya and Africa, a continent that is too often far away and forgotten; I am thinking of the 790 million people in the world who are suffering from hunger or the 300 million children who have to work; I am thinking of the 1625 executions carried out last year in the 72 countries whose legal systems still provide for capital punishment.
Finally, I am also thinking of the fate of the Kurdish leader, Mr Öçalan, whose life has to be saved, I truly believe, through all of our efforts.
The very fact that capital punishment is so widespread is one of the most intolerable breaches of each individual' s dignity and right to life: a breach which we feel deeply and which we want to fight, for example, by pointing out that the actual enlargement process of the Union is proving to be not just a factor of peace and security for the continent, but also the way to make applicant states overcome such barbarity.
We know that it will be a long and difficult process; this was shown by the UN' s failure to debate the European Union resolution on the moratorium on capital punishment.
It was a serious and painful setback, and it is up to us, Members of Parliament, and the Commission, not to let this commitment lie: on the contrary, we must take it up with renewed vigour.
Mr President, at the moment, in the United States, in Virginia, the life of a young Italo-American who has been condemned to die but continues to declare his innocence is just one of the many lives which must be saved.
I am taking this opportunity to ask you, the President of Parliament, the President of the Council and the Commission, to take urgent action in making an appeal to the United States to suspend the execution of Derek Rocco Barnabei, because the battle against capital punishment is a battle for civilisation which must be fought every time it is necessary and in every way possible.
Mr President, according to Amnesty International, there are still 142 countries which ride roughshod over human rights, ranging from excessive police violence to tortures and killings.
This sober fact overshadows, I believe, the unmistakably positive developments in some countries.
More than anything, it places in perspective the memorable fact that an increasing number of countries are abolishing the death penalty and are signing major human rights treaties.
Never before has so much lip service been paid to human rights.
Never before has there been so much verbal condemnation without being followed up by sanctions.
Human rights violations are a blot on our civilisation, impunity even more so.
Nevertheless, we see, thinking of Rwanda for example, that the law is very slow in catching up with those responsible for the most gruesome violations of human integrity - if it does so at all.
As such, impunity causes more violations.
The truth is that human rights are still too often subordinated to commercial and other interests of Member States.
Unfortunately, there is no common strategy as yet.
This partly explains why we are so often overtaken by events. Why did disaster have to strike East Timor, Kosovo and Rwanda first before something was done?
The international community often watches helplessly.
Our policy for human rights should be credible.
There is no room for double standards.
China and - to a lesser extent Russia - often remain out of harm' s way a lot longer than certain African regimes.
Some will term this selectivity.
I prefer to call it opportunism and a lack of courage.
The present report, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, the first of its kind, deserves all credit and is a first step towards a consistent and coherent human rights policy to which the Council, Commission and Parliament, in a joint effort, should give their all.
Mr President, this Council report deserves credit and there is every reason to compliment the Finnish Presidency on its commitment, although I have to add that I deplore the fact that the Finnish presidency delegation has just left the Chamber.
There are mainly three reasons why I welcome the publication of this report. Firstly, it is based on a coherent vision, a vision which rejects a hierarchy of types of human rights, but which emphasises their very interdependence.
The report also makes a first attempt to create coherence between the external and internal human rights policy of the European Union, especially the latter being a real innovative step.
It has to be said that, compared to Parliament, the Council appears to be leading the way.
Secondly, the report does not fall into the trap of presenting human rights as a European achievement but presupposes universality and adopts a global approach with a great deal of attention being paid to the EU' s action within the scope of the United Nations.
Thirdly, the report is the product of an organised dialogue with the social organisations involved in human rights issues.
The forum held here in Brussels over the past couple of days deserves a regular spot in the Union' s consultative network.
There are, however, also a few minus points to be noted.
The attempt within the EU to include self-evident human rights issues in the report is very biased to say the least. Why does discrimination on account of race or ethnic origin receive preferential treatment over, for example, discrimination against women and homosexuals, which does not feature or hardly features as an issue at all?
Could this be a taste of how the Council will handle the package of anti-discriminatory measures which the Commission proposed last week? Why is no attention being given to other human rights issues prevalent within the Union, such as abuse in prisons or at police stations, killings by armed political groupings and the situation of conscientious objectors, to name only the most obvious issues?
The Council needs to summon up the political courage to spend more time on the internal human rights situation within the EU in the next annual report.
In this context, the proposal for a so-called "observation centre" must also be kept on the agenda.
After all, experience has taught us that collecting and analysing information is a prerequisite to achieving a sound human rights policy.
Mr President, in Belarus, the Christian Democrat parliamentarians Andrey Klimov and Vladimir Kudinov have disappeared without trace.
What has happened to these colleagues of ours?
One contributory and forward-looking feature of this report is the fact that it acknowledges the role not only of political decisions but also of civil society in creating an environment where human rights have the profound and enduring support of the people.
The value of this insight cannot be underestimated.
The right to life and respect for its inviolability are the basic human rights and therefore both the essence and goal of democracy.
At the same time, they express the Christian view of human life which, for two thousand years, has formed a precious part of Europe' s cultural and spiritual heritage and which, as we confront the new millennium, is a valuable asset for Europe to further build upon in the struggle for human rights.
The fact that the European Union has now started preparing annual reports on the ways in which human rights are respected within and outside the EU' s Member States is something which we Swedish Christian Democrats warmly welcome.
With the right to life as its theme, the EU should continue to maintain a consistent line on the death penalty and, especially via the United Nations, to challenge those countries which consider it to be ethically and morally acceptable to defend the State' s right to take another person' s life.
In the pressing work of extending the EU eastwards, demands for a moratorium on, and future abolition of, the death penalty have, in our own part of the world too, influenced ethical thinking and legislation in the direction of affirming human life.
The present report illuminates the frightening developments affecting the smallest among us, who are also those most precious to us, representing our own future, namely our children.
The fact that one million children on this earth work as prostitutes at the same time as dark forces disseminate child pornography is deeply alarming and causes a vast amount of bitterness.
On the basis of the right which children have to a father and mother and to secure conditions in which to grow up in a family environment, it is our common challenge, in the face of the new millennium, to allow children' s needs to be our guide in all the work that is done in society.
Mr President, of course, like many of those who have already spoken, I welcome the fact that the Council has now submitted a first annual report on human rights, as called for repeatedly by Parliament.
One important point which I would like to raise is the human rights clause in treaties with third countries, which has already been implemented on numerous occasions since 1995.
Human rights clauses are a fundamental part of these treaties.
People and their basic rights are therefore removed by means of a treaty from the powers of disposal of the other party to the treaty, despite the fact that we have always taken the view that insisting on human rights does not represent interference in the internal affairs of a country.
What is important as far as the practical implementation is concerned, is that both the EU Commission and the Member States have the political will in this particular instance not only to identify violations of human rights and hence of a fundamental part of the treaty, but also to apply the legal consequences provided for, which generally start with consultation and may lead to the suspension of parts or even the cancellation of the entire treaty.
But we all know what happens in practice.
Time and time again, human rights issues are pushed to one side or even considered to be counterproductive for irrelevant reasons. Either a lucrative transaction hangs in the balance or the agreement or support of some government or other is needed, for example in a particular committee at UN level.
Luckily, non-governmental organisations working in this area cannot afford to take account of such false considerations and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking them with all my heart for their work.
And we Members of Parliament, both here and in our national parliaments, should likewise shun such considerations.
Denunciations of human rights violations are not merely sound bites in daily politics.
We have seen time and time again that the targets, i.e. the governments which are publicly accused of human rights violations, find such denunciations highly embarrassing and try to prevent them.
If we were to ensure that neither governments nor individual undertakings were willing to jeopardise the solidarity of the democratic community of states for the sake of concluding a treaty, these governments would have no opportunity of playing one off against the other.
A country such as China, to name one example, still needs our technology.
We should not ignore the plight of thousands of prisoners of conscience or suppressed national groups such as the Tibetans just so that we can build a new railway or ensure that a State visit proceeds smoothly.
I, too, therefore support the idea of adding another report to the report here and to the numerous other reports on the same subject.
I would like to see more details on individual countries in the next report, for example, on which occasions the Council or the Commission approached which government on a specific matter.
One might also offer during such discussions to refrain from mentioning the matter if it is cleared up by the time the next report is published.
We can afford to be flexible in form, but not in content!
Mr President, coordination and consistency are essential to a policy on human rights.
The Union should now be focusing on the effective implementation of agreements.
Implementation should cover three important areas: the monitoring of human rights, the establishment of human rights and the structures of a policy on human rights.
The EU must develop monitoring mechanisms to observe the human rights situation both within the EU and in third countries.
Monitoring must lead to a comprehensive assessment of the situation with regard to human rights.
That assessment must include an analysis of the human rights situation, a decision on measures to improve that situation, a programme to monitor the impact of the measures on the situation, an evaluation of their success and a public report on the assessment and its results.
It is important that we report on the problems within the EU as effectively and openly as on those in third countries.
In recent years, the EU has witnessed within its borders police violence, which has often been targeted against persons from outside the EU, cell deaths and discrimination against sexual minorities.
The lack of protection for refugees is perhaps the biggest human rights problem within the EU.
The Union policy on refugees, like that of the Member States, lags behind the standards we could expect from economically developed countries.
Matters relating to refugees and asylum are for us primarily matters of security and control.
The practice clearly contravenes the obligations of the Geneva Convention.
The common EU strategy on Russia should emphasise the importance of human rights.
Establishing human rights is one of the greatest challenges in the attempt to increase Russian prosperity and stability.
The human rights situation in Russia today is alarming.
The aims of security, stability and sustainable development associated with the northern dimension will only be of secondary importance if we neglect the issue of human rights.
It is time we realised the European Parliament' s idea of a monitoring body to be set up within the Commission to promote an efficient human rights policy and report on questions relating to human rights.
A respect for human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities are major requirements for accession to the Union.
Taking criteria relating to human rights and minorities as serious conditions of membership would require that these criteria and the obligations of applicant countries towards their minorities be accorded the same status as other fundamental criteria in the negotiations on membership.
Thank you.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Turkey
The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:
(A5-0071/1999) by Mr Morillon, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a Council regulation regarding the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey;
(A5-0070/1999) by Mr Morillon, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a Council regulation regarding the implementation of measures to intensify the EC-Turkey Customs Union.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my reports follow on from the report published last year on Turkey by Mr McMillan-Scott and Mr Swoboda and from the resolution of this House of 6 October which concluded on the importance of expanding the European strategy for Turkey. This House should therefore be able tomorrow to adopt these two proposals for European Parliament and Council regulations on the implementation of measures, on one hand, to promote economic and social development in Turkey and, on the other, to intensify the EC-Turkey Customs Union.
The first proposal involves financing, over the next three years, up to a total of EUR 135 million based on Article 130 of the EC Treaty. This requires the codecision procedure to be used.
The second proposal which, over the same period, provides for a commitment of EUR 15 million, may come under a simple consultation procedure.
The EU is therefore prepared to resume the financial aid decided on in March 1995 under the Customs Union agreements. This aid has been blocked since then due to a lack of unanimity in Council.
I will not expand on the reasons for this blockage other than to say that the crisis in the Aegean played a major part. European concerns in the essential areas of respect for human rights and the protection of ethnic minorities were also very much taken into consideration.
In this respect, the forum which was requested by this House should have an important role to play. It could use the existing structures, particularly within the Economic and Social Committee of the European Community.
The proposals for regulations submitted for our approval will, under these conditions, help to encourage the continuation of the current political development.
They contain a clause authorising the Council to take the appropriate steps if it were proven that the most basic rights were being violated in Turkey.
This clause stipulates that either this House or the Commission could propose suspension to the Council.
I must stress that if we care about the coherence of the strategy adopted and approved by this House in recent months, we should avoid introducing, through our amendments, any measures which would block the process that has been started.
We must not lose sight of the importance of encouraging a fruitful dialogue with Turkey, if only, for example, for obvious geostrategic reasons.
Finally, as a reminder, although the provisions establishing all this aid involve financing over three years of EUR 150 million, the European Union' s trade surplus with Turkey has doubled since the entry into force on 1 January 1996 of the Customs Union agreement, thereby increasing in four years from EUR 4 billion to EUR 8 billion.
I truly believe that the Community must now honour its previous commitments so as not to discourage all those in Turkey who are resolutely committed to the Customs Union route and who have therefore decided to attach their country to the European Economic Area.
On behalf of the Committee on Budgets, I want to recommend the Morillon reports.
The Committee on Budgets' amendments have been integrated into the reports, and one could wish for nothing better.
In the Commission' s proposals concerning resources for promoting economic and social development in Turkey and for extending the Customs Union between the European Community and Turkey, it is proposed that the period 2000-2002 should be covered, because the year is now so far advanced that it is too late to establish new budget headings for this purpose in 1999.
The Committee on Budgets also wishes reference to be made to the interinstitutional agreement of 6 May of this year and for it to be stated that the recommended amounts for the period 2000-2002 should constitute a portion of the multiannual financial framework for the MEDA programme so that it is apparent that we are not concerned here with a new expenditure item.
Ever since the European Council confirmed in December 1997 that Turkey could apply for membership of the EU, efforts have been made to create the opportunity to provide financial aid with a view to promoting economic cooperation and bringing Turkey closer to the EU.
This, then, is the background to these proposals, on the one hand, for a three-year subsidy of EUR 15 million when a start is made on implementing the Community' s regulations and developing the Customs Union between the EC and Turkey and, on the other hand, for the subsidy of EUR 135 million for developing the economically backward regions of Turkey.
These resources therefore have nothing to do with the special subsidy, proposed in the budget for the year 2000, for reconstruction and aid in connection with the earthquakes in Turkey.
In 1998 and 1999, Turkey was allocated grants under the MEDA programme, the European Parliament' s having approved the Commission' s programmes following participation in an interinstitutional working party.
The Committee on Budgets also decided that this working party should be maintained during the reading of the Budget for the year 2000.
I have just one technical remark on Amendment No 15 in the report concerning economic cooperation where it is stated that the Council (with a qualified majority) or the European Parliament can decide to suspend the partnership.
We are talking here about joint decision making, so the Council cannot decide without Parliament' s being heard.
This is just by way of clarifying the interpretation of this proposal.
Finally, I should say that, this year, the policy-making process has been delayed by the parliamentary election and by the special circumstances in connection with the Commission' s departure.
It is good that a resolution can now be adopted to press ahead with the financial aid in accordance with the political conditions linked to the grants.
Mr President, Mr Morillon is to be congratulated for producing these reports in very difficult circumstances and with very little time. We are all in his debt and his reward has been the favourable vote in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
These reports clearly respond to commitments made by the European Union.
The Customs Union with Turkey has to be accompanied by special budget aid and a series of special loans from the European Investment Bank, in addition to the programmes provided for under the MEDA programme and procedure.
This aid consists of two types of measure.
The first is aimed at strengthening economic and social cohesion and overcoming the regional development inequalities within the country.
The other is intended to help Turkey gradually gain access to the Community market, take on the acquis communautaire and intensify the Customs Union.
For this last objective, a three-year multiannual framework of EUR 15 million is provided.
As no budget cover exists for these amounts in 1999, the multiannual financial framework of the programme will have to be extended by one year to 2002, as mentioned today by the rapporteur. The appropriations for 1999 will also have to be included in the draft supplementary and amending budget.
It is impossible to separate the Morillon report from the general context of relations with Turkey.
We have today debated with the President-in-Office of the Council and the President of the Commission the problems which have occurred, the proposals made by the European Commission in its report on the Helsinki Summit and also the position which the Council of Ministers will presumably adopt.
This House adopted a resolution in October which clearly marks the line which should be followed by the European Parliament. However, as stated today by Mr Poettering, on behalf of my group, there are some disagreements within our group as to the importance, nature and scope to be attributed to Turkey' s application.
I particularly believe, and I said this in the debate in October, that for the first time all the pieces of the Turkish jigsaw are on the table, namely the problems of the Aegean islands, Cyprus, human rights and ethnic minorities.
A major debate is currently in progress on the ratification of the death penalty imposed on Mr Öçalan.
I agree with the rapporteur that the vote on these reports should not now be taken off the agenda.
This House has made an inescapable commitment to a moratorium on the death penalty, as we did in the debate in the last plenary part-session, on which I understand the President has written to the Turkish authorities. I therefore feel that the European Union must honour its commitments and, at the same time, recognise that nobody has been executed in Turkey for fifteen years.
This must not lead us to forget the commitment we have made to the defence of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the ethnic minorities in Turkey.
In my opinion, we must be very clear and send an unambiguous message to the Turkish authorities about what they can expect from us and what their corresponding rights are.
We must be extremely clear in this respect, by stressing that they are entitled to apply but that it is not in our interest to start these accession negotiations until the Copenhagen criteria, and the political commitments in particular, have been met.
The European Union' s commitment must be to therefore very firmly support the excellent reports presented by Mr Morillon.
Mr President, these two reports which the Group of the Party of European Socialists supports - and we should like to thank Mr Morillon for the work he has put into them - is an important contribution to Turkey' s rapprochement with Europe.
I agree, however, with Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra that these reports are part of a larger pattern in our relationship with Turkey.
I think that the most important message which is coming out of the European Union at the present time is that Turkey is entitled to apply for membership of the Union.
It might well be said that this is an opportunity which Turkey has had for almost thirty-five years, ever since the Association Agreement.
It is, however, important that we point this out at the present time.
We need a democratically stable, socially and economically developed Turkey in the European partnership.
That is important for our security and our future in Europe.
For us, the views of the democrats in Turkey and of those struggling for human rights within organisations dedicated to that purpose are obviously very significant. Almost all of these people are in favour of Turkey being regarded as an candidate country.
The Kurdish question, the issue of Cyprus, torture and breaches of human rights are also, at a serious level, European matters which will be discussed, examined and dealt with at different monitoring stations within the European Union. In this way, resolutions and the war of words will be translated into the genuine work of reform involving clear and agreed goals.
At a big international seminar two weeks ago, arranged by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, all the Turkish parties, including the old Welfare Party, declared themselves in favour of applicant states such as Turkey becoming members of the European Union.
For Turkey, this now means that matters have become serious. The move must now be made from ambitions and intentions to the purposeful work of reform in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria.
For our part, we now want to challenge the Turkish government to translate their words into action and show that they are serious in their endeavour to enter the European partnership.
We should then demonstrate that we too are serious about their efforts.
Mr President, it is a pleasure to welcome the two outstanding reports put forward by Mr Morillon, and I turn first to the report which he has prepared on Customs Union to say how much we welcome that report in which we must remind Turkey that she too has to play her part.
The European Union has made major efforts over a number of years to ensure this Customs Union is successful, and Turkey herself must now ensure that she fulfils the role that she is called upon to play.
I also support what is perhaps the more contentious report.
It is a welcome report on economic and social development in Turkey and was supported in the Committee for Foreign Affairs this week.
Here the joint forum has to be of major importance, and again both sides must fulfil their role.
We are, of course, confident that we will do so.
We remain confident that Turkey will also.
In this period of time before Helsinki, it is vital that we look too at the rule of law, human rights, respect for minorities, protection and recognition of their cultural identity and support for measures seeking to abolish capital punishment, one of the amendments that came before our committee to the Morillon report this week.
We have, of course, the unhappy fact of one death penalty upheld in Turkey at this very moment.
But I believe there is good news that we can focus on even in that tragic situation where the possibility of a citizen losing his life at the hands of the State is upheld by the Court of Appeal.
May I remind my colleagues here today that Turkey has not used the death penalty in practice since 1984.
There has been an effective moratorium in place since then with the result that 53 people who were defined as subject to what we would call cruel and inhuman punishment, have had their cases put on one side.
At the moment the Minister for the European Council and Human Rights, is reported in today's issue of Milliyet, the daily paper, as being firmly against capital punishment.
There is a new law coming to the Turkish Parliament in the year 2000, put forward by academics, in which for the first time ever the proposed criminal justice bill does not contain the death penalty.
Let us hope and believe that in this year 2000, Turkey's commitment to our millennium year globally will be the abolition of the death penalty once and for all through the democratic parliamentary process.
Mr President, the European Union is about to take a major decision which may change relations with Turkey radically.
The Commission has proposed that Turkey should be accorded candidate status.
If the Council in Helsinki accepts this proposal, it would lay the foundations in Turkey for a new form of dialogue with the European Union, in that Ankara would then have the prospect of future membership.
It would also mean that the Union would have to keep its promises.
The rapporteur' s proposals allow the mistakes of 1995 to be corrected, when the European Union intensified relations with Turkey, without guaranteeing the necessary financial aid.
Financial aid for Turkey cannot be divorced from obligations in the fields of social development and democracy, rule of law and respect for human and minority rights.
This is referred to equally in both reports because it is important that participation in the European economic system should go hand in glove with democratic development.
Another important point is the involvement of the European Parliament.
Its debates can provide further transparency and raise the political and democratic profile of relations between the European Union and Turkey.
The case of Öçalan - I am referring to the death penalty - raises the question of how we will have to deal with such issues in the future.
There can be only one response from all the political groups in this House and that is the demand that capital punishment be abolished.
It is not a question of making an angel of peace of Öçalan. On the contrary, we need to demonstrate that respect for human rights means much more than empty rhetoric, of course it does, and not just in Turkey.
This House should call on Turkey to comply with the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, which is incompatible with the execution of Öçalan.
I can read Turkish and I am pleased that, so far, I have seen no reports of negative reactions from the government in Ankara in the Turkish press or in other Turkish media.
That gives me reason to hope.
Despite everything said about Turkey today, it is important for us to pursue the new Turkish policy of the European Union.
In this sense we support the two reports as a contribution to the democratisation of Turkey.
Mr President, as far as the content of the two reports is concerned, I would find it relatively easy to support them, despite certain shortcomings.
They succeed in presenting the political requirements of cooperation with Turkey clearly and consistently, especially the need for compliance with, and development of, human rights, including the rights of the Kurdish people, the demand for the abolition of capital punishment, the strengthening of the civil society, greater involvement by non-governmental organisations and the abolition of social deprivation and regional under-development.
The fact that these changes were necessary reflects badly on the Commission.
The fact that they were possible reflects well on the parliamentary committee and the work of Mr Morillon.
Nonetheless, my decision has been made extraordinarily difficult.
The Commission maintains in its proposal that a process of democratisation and promotion of human rights has been introduced in Turkey and we heard similar words from Mr Prodi this afternoon.
The committee, on the other hand, only talks clearly of the need for such a process, but not of an allegedly positive development already under way.
Not only does that appear to be decidedly more realistic to me; it also tallies with the evaluation which the Commission itself made in a communication to the Cologne Summit on 3 and 4 June this year.
Twice it says that it sees no noticeable improvement, at least on the Kurdish question, and it rates any chance of further improvement as doubtful given the rise of, in the Commission' s words, the ultra-nationalist MHP party.
I am most baffled as to what our optimism is actually based on and why the Commission has circulated two contradictory assessments.
From where I stand, it appears perfectly clear that there has been no real, positive development in the issues raised.
The Turkish Vice-Premier Bahcelý of the MHP stated in connection with the upholding of the death sentence on Öçalan - perhaps it only appeared in the German newspapers - that Europe should not be encouraged to interfere even more boldly in Turkish affairs and President Ecevit expressed the view that a judgement by the Court of Justice in Strasbourg need not be accepted.
That clearly contradicts the commitments entered into by Turkey as a member of the Council of Europe.
Their own international legal commitments continue to be openly disregarded by Turkish officials when it comes to human rights.
I consider the honest offer of membership of the European Union to Turkey to be strategically correct and necessary.
The European Union must have room for and an interest in including Turkey and must clarify that unequivocally once and for all.
However, there can be no cutting back on demands for democratisation of the constitution and political realities, fundamental improvements in respect for human rights, a political solution to the Kurdish question and an end to the occupation of northern Cyprus.
All this is still outstanding.
Tomorrow we must adopt either the Commission version or the committee version of Article 3(2).
Both versions contain terms for suspending cooperation in the event of fundamental violations of human rights.
I see these violations and therefore consider that it is wrong to pass this text at this point in time.
That would push our own paper and our own credibility ad absurdum.
My group therefore is in favour under these circumstances of deferring both reports.
We sent a proper signal to the Russian Government in a similar situation two weeks ago.
We should handle this matter in the same way.
Mr President, at a time when the European Parliament is deciding on new forms of support for Turkey, we would like to point out that we are amongst those who say that Turkey must be helped and deserves to be helped in its process of transition to full democracy.
I would even go so far as to say that the European Union should encourage cooperation between its Member States and Turkey.
The reports that we are debating here today nevertheless give us the opportunity to reflect once again on Turkey' s progress in terms of human rights and the protection of minorities.
In this context, we were extremely concerned to hear of the confirmation by the Supreme Court in Turkey of the death sentence on Öçalan.
I am a Member of the European Parliament for Portugal, a country that abolished the death penalty as long ago as the 19th Century.
We were, moreover, the first European Union country to do so.
Personally, I reject this form of punishment, both out of conviction and because I do not think that it achieves any of the aims that punishment seeks to achieve.
Consequently, we feel that it would now be timely to give yet another very clear signal that the preservation of human rights and the protection of minorities in Turkey are still an essential condition for the European Parliament to show its solidarity in terms of cooperation and support for that country.
Mr President, I would like to point out that just yesterday, here in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights accepted a request for a stay of execution for Öçalan whilst it examines the case.
I was also pleased to read that President Nicole Fontaine reacted speedily to the confirmation of this sentence and I also read that she would intervene with the President of the Turkish National Assembly in order that it should not confirm the carrying out of the death sentence.
I do not know if she was able to obtain any guarantees from him or not.
My feeling is that the European Parliament should look with the utmost caution at developments, not just in this case but also in Turkey' s human rights situation, and in the protection of its minorities, and this caution should be matched with an equal degree of firmness.
To this effect, tomorrow I shall propose - contrary to what others here appear to think should be done - that we postpone voting on the two reports until a later sitting, and I would therefore ask the President of the European Parliament on behalf of the institution over which she presides, to formulate a clear request to the Helsinki European Council that if the decision by the Turkish authorities stands, the Council should adopt a firm position with regard to Turkey' s application to join the European Union.
I think that only in this way will the European Parliament be effectively and unambiguously defending principles and values rather than just stating them.
Mr President, I have spoken out several times in favour of Mr Öçalan, but I have to say that the debate on Turkey must not focus solely on the case of President Öçalan' s death sentence, because Turkey as a whole is undemocratic; in Turkey, human rights are not respected.
I visited Turkey as a member of the Committee on Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I therefore think I am speaking after due consideration.
It is not only the Öçalan case which leads me say that Turkey is not yet ready to apply: Mr Öçalan, among other things, was practically handed over by the D' Alema Government - a black mark against Italy' s name - but on the other hand, it was precisely from the Italian Penal Code that Turkey borrowed article 155 of its own Penal Code, which permitted Mr Öçalan to be condemned - article 155 of the Turkish Penal Code was copied from article 241 of the Italian Penal Code - and therefore I was not in the least surprised by the position of the Italian Government on this case either.
Be that as it may, Turkey still has the death penalty: well, while it is hard to change the mentality of the police and change the situation in the prisons, a law is, nevertheless, sufficient and a parliamentary vote is sufficient to abolish the death penalty, which is what many countries in the European Union have done.
How one can have capital punishment and at the same time ask to join the European Union is something that still astounds me, but I am even more astonished that there is talk of granting candidate status to a country that has not yet abolished capital punishment.
For this reason too, therefore, I am in favour of postponing the vote.
Mr President, we support the reports drafted by Mr Morillon on the promotion of economic and social development in Turkey and the strengthening of the Customs Union between the European Union and said country, especially in light of the fact that this country was twice struck by earthquakes this year.
Indeed, it is the exactly the latter circumstance which threatens to thwart the Ecevit Government' s opportune intention of starting to eliminate the grinding socio-economic disadvantage of the Turkish south-eastern provinces.
The rapporteur is right in stipulating that EU-financed projects and programmes, in particular, should benefit those sections of the Turkish population who are lagging behind.
However, we do not wish to conceal the fact that we certainly would not want to interpret this helping hand from Brussels to Ankara as a political gesture pointing towards candidate status vis-à-vis the EU.
In our opinion, the agreed Customs Union offers plenty of scope for Turkey to be given opportunities for development.
As far as we are concerned, the highest level of European cooperation with Turkey has been reached with this effort.
Quite significantly, the appeals made to Turkey by the rapporteur and other submitters of amendments, to finally walk the difficult path to becoming a democratic constitutional State, are in line with our fundamental objections to confirming Ankara' s candidate status.
Why does the European Union not speak in plain terms? False hope on both sides would, in any case make us fear for a speedy relapse into the old situation of "cold friendship" .
Mr President, I wish to congratulate General Morillon on his report and also recognise the important contribution made by his predecessor in this work, Edward McMillan Scott.
Let me just take a slightly different tack to that pursued by a number of the previous speakers.
I really believe that we should be talking in more encouraging tones to Turkey at the moment.
Many of us wish to see positive progress in the development of the Union's relations with Turkey, and it is most important therefore that obstacles to the provision of EU financial aid for Turkey are removed as soon as possible.
Not only that, but in recognition of Turkey's candidate status, which we trust will be endorsed and taken forward shortly by the European Council in Helsinki, we should be thinking in terms of a more ambitious programme of assistance.
After all, the measures proposed are aimed at enabling Turkey to put in place the necessary structural adjustments resulting from the Customs Union which operates very much at the moment in the European Union's favour.
Mr Prodi, when he was speaking to this House on 13 October, suggested that an accession partnership similar to the partnerships established with the official candidate countries would also help Turkey move steadily towards meeting the membership criteria.
It is recognised that accession negotiations cannot commence until the political criteria are met but we must give Turkey every assistance to get to this stage.
In Parliament's resolution of 6 October, we resolved to work speedily on the technical and financial assistance necessary to complete the Customs Union; and we called on the Council to support the necessary measures.
We have now reached that stage and trust that Council will be wholly supportive of our proposals.
We should also be prepared to begin consideration of measures that will help bring Turkey closer to our values and our economic approach.
Mr President, I should like, first of all, to congratulate General Morillon on his excellent report.
The Morillon report provides us with a good opportunity to discuss a European strategy for Turkey without beating about the bush.
I am sure we all agree that, in the European Union, no issue has been as controversial and given rise to as much tension and opposition as that of relations between the European Union and Turkey, and this is understandable, because Turkey has nothing in common with any other country involved in the enlargement process.
The other twelve countries together create fewer problems than Turkey does alone: economic and social problems, problems relating to human rights, democracy and respect for minorities.
In short, it has created problems of security and stability in south-east Europe by basing its foreign policy either on open violence, as in Cyprus where it continues to occupy the northern part of the island, or on the threat of violence, as when the Turkish parliament officially stated that if Greece exercised its sovereign rights in territorial waters in the Aegean this would be a casus belli.
The question of a European strategy for Turkey is basically quite simple.
The European Union is not going to change for Turkey' s sake, but Turkey is going to battle to become a European country.
Europe is not going to become Turkish; Turkey is going to become European.
The European strategy for Turkey must make clear to the Turkish political classes and to Turkish society that there is not going to be a separate set of rules for Turkey and that Turkey must meet all the criteria set in Copenhagen and Luxembourg if its European prospects are to prosper.
The Union must make it clear in the run up to Helsinki that it should respect international law on Cyprus.
The Union must make it clear that the integration process for Cyprus will continue, regardless of any form of blackmail by Turkey.
The Union must ensure that all applicant countries, Turkey included, respect international treaties and international law and cooperate with neighbouring countries to promote peace, and that any disputes are resolved through international law and international judicial bodies, such as the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Yes, Turkey should become a member of the Union but it should leave violence, unlawfulness and autocracy outside Europe' s door and enter in peace and democracy.
That is what the Turkish people want and it is what its neighbour Greece and its fellow citizens want.
Mr President, Commissioner, the European Free Alliance has not approved of Customs Union in the past.
The majority in this Parliament did approve following tortuous debates since approval would encourage the Turkish Government to arrive at an acceptable human rights policy, true democracy and a political solution to end the Kurdish issue.
We find that the outcome is not altogether convincing.
With the sentencing to death of the Kurdish leader Öçalan and confirmation thereof, we are once again faced with the tragic consequences of an unresolved request for respect and right of self-determination on behalf of a people, the Kurdish people, in Turkey.
In Turkey, a great deal of pressure is being exerted by various parties and groups on Turkish society to demand the execution of Öçalan.
Turkey is not yet ready to abolish the death sentence by a long shot, even if the death sentence is not actually carried out.
Turkey has to provide us with a guarantee that the life of Öçalan will be spared.
If this is not the case, the hope that a political solution will be reached for the Kurdish issue in Turkey will once again be dashed.
The despair of the Kurds will not do much for stability in our countries either. We know that thousands of Kurds live here.
I would nevertheless like to join in the congratulations extended to the rapporteur, as the text of his report is, in many ways, an improvement on the Commission' s proposal.
One could say that the financial support follows on from earlier decisions reached by us.
But think it through: if we vote on the text, the report stipulates that financial cooperation can be suspended in the event that the democratic principles of the constitutional State, human rights or fundamental liberties are violated.
Does this not imply that, if we grant financial benefits today, the goalposts for human rights, etc. have already been set and that, consequently, only a deterioration of the current situation could lead to suspension? As far as we are concerned, the goalposts of these measures do not go far enough.
We would like to see the situation in Turkey drastically improve in terms of democratisation and human rights and in terms of a solution to the Kurdish issue, but we hope that this is possible without having to exert financial pressure.
Mr President, because of our feelings of solidarity and fraternity with the people of Turkey, we oppose that country' s accession into the European Union because, as the experience of the Greek people has shown, the Turkish people have nothing positive to gain from it.
However, we are being urged to vote in favour of the two regulations and the release of the relevant appropriations to Turkey, both because it has made significant progress towards democratisation and in order to encourage it to go still further in that direction.
Contrary to claims by the Council and the Commission to the effect that democracy is progressing in Turkey, claims which demonstrate that the first to benefit from progress are the multinationals, it is blindingly obvious that the situation has, in fact, deteriorated.
So what is happening today? Turkey is still illegally occupying 38% of Cyprus in full contravention of international law, it is continuing with its provocations against Greece; it is still engaged in barbarous ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Kurdish people; it still insists on resolving the Kurdish issue through military intervention and it is continuing its military operations against the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Over 12 000 political prisoners are being held in its prisons where torture and murder are an everyday occurrence.
Leila Zana, winner of the Sakharov prize, is still in prison, as are three Kurdish parliamentarians and famous writers and journalists.
Recently, twelve political prisoners protesting against inhumane prison conditions were murdered.
Then there is the case of Mr Öçalan who, aside from the inhumane way in which he was abducted and imprisoned, was sentenced to death in a mockery of a trial, and whose sentence was unanimously upheld two days ago by the Turkish Supreme Court of Appeal. That shows just how sensitive the Ankara authorities really are to appeals for democratisation.
Secondly, we are told that if we accept these regulations and release these appropriations, it will help the democratisation process.
We were told the same thing when the Customs Union was signed five years ago.
However, neither the constitution nor the criminal code has been democratised. The death penalty has still not been abolished, nor has the Kurdish issue been resolved politically and, according to statements by Turkish ministers, the Cyprus question "is no longer an issue" .
So, believe me, if we vote in favour of the two regulations under discussion, despite their positive aspects, then this will certainly encourage the Turkish regime, which claims that Turkey is the most advanced democracy in all of Europe, to tighten its existing policies.
We do not want to hit the forces fighting for true democracy, we want to send a message of solidarity to prisoners and push for real democratisation of the regime, which is why we urge you to vote against these two reports or, at least, to refer them back to the committee until such time as Turkey shows tangible evidence of democratisation and respect for international law.
Mr President, once again, a few weeks after the debate on extending the SOCRATES programme to young people in Turkey, Parliament is going back to addressing the controversial issue of relations between the European Union and Turkey.
This time, instead of culture, the nature of the European intervention is intended to support the social and economic development of the Mediterranean country and, for the umpteenth time, the question that we are all silently asking ourselves remains: can, and indeed should, the European Union in any way support a State that is geographically close, if not contiguous, surrounded by the same sea that washes upon the coasts of Southern Europe, even if that State appears extremely distant as regards respect for human rights? We are disappointed to note that since 1996, the year when the Aegean Sea crisis led the European Community to block the agreement on the Customs Union with Turkey, no headway has been made towards obtaining total respect for civil rights and the protection of minorities.
While the Turkish Government has made some half-hearted attempts in recent years, the recent death sentence placed on the Kurdish leader, Mr Öçalan, has made any possible political rapprochement between Turkey and the European Union more remote.
And yet, as we have maintained several times in this Chamber, the process of a community' s democratic growth also occurs through its economic and social development.
To deny the financial aid proposed by the Commission for the next three years for the development of the Customs Union would, especially at this tragic time when this Mediterranean country is on its knees following a terrible catastrophe, contribute to exacerbating a downward spiral with unimaginable consequences to Turkey.
To conclude, the Italian delegation from Alleanza Nazionale thinks it more sensible to have a carefully considered acceptance of cooperation with Turkey, subordinating it to specific, tangible actions to bring its government into line with western European democracies.
Democracy has a price, Mr President: asking Turkey to pay it is an act not of weakness, but of great responsibility.
Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by thanking Mr Morillon for his extremely factual report and his conscious effort to stick to the point.
Commissioner, because we have heard some criticism of the Commission, I would like to congratulate you and your officials, who are with us today, for the committed approach which they take to this issue, and for always communicating and discussing matters with Parliament.
Of course, assessments sometimes turn out differently in various Commission documents and papers.
But perhaps that has more to do with erratic Turkish policy, which sometimes makes more and sometimes makes less progress.
But anyone who sees things as they really are will note that some progress has been made over recent months and it deserves acknowledgement.
We must not fail to take the matter seriously, as some previous speakers have said and done, for to do otherwise would only give succour to the Turkish government!
What I wonder is: how come Akim Birdal is in favour of introducing a new strategy, how come other Kurdish representatives are in favour of our introducing a new strategy, how come the entire opposition to the government and civil society are in favour of our introducing a new strategy if all it does is support the government?
I should like to extend my special thanks to the Greek government and to foreign secretary Papandreou; that was a courageous step, especially in light of domestic political relations.
It was also a highly risky step which was clearly also motivated by the situation in Cyprus and the attempt to bring Cyprus closer to the European Union and find a political solution to the Cyprus question.
So we are not uncritical of Turkey; on the contrary.
I repeat, Turkey would be a lot further down the road to Europe if it had applied fundamentally different measures in the field of human rights and minority rights in good time, at the right time, especially with regard to the Kurdish question, democracy in relation to Greece and a contribution towards solving the problem in Cyprus.
But if the Council decides in the next few days - I say if - to officially recognise Turkey as a candidate, then Turkey must realise that the ball is in its court.
Then it will be up to Turkey to make the next move, because we will have made a move, partly in response to the minor changes which we have seen, partly in anticipation of what might, should and must follow.
But then the ball will be in Turkey' s court and it is up to Turkey to make the next move if further progress is to be made in bringing Turkey and Europe closer together.
We want to have Turkey in the European Union, but Turkey knows full well that only a Turkey which recognises the Copenhagen criteria can become a member of the European Union.
Every candidate country knows that and Turkey should know it too.
I trust that it will soon take steps to meet these criteria.
It will, without doubt, take a number of years, but the more quickly Turkey acts, the more quickly it will become a member of the European Union.
Mr President, I do not know if it is symbolic in any way that the report on these issues was put forward by one of our colleagues, who happens to be a General.
This distinguished colleague endeavoured to improve the Commission' s proposals.
However, we should refer both these texts back, because we are not a schizophrenic parliament which says one thing for Chechnya and another for Turkey.
We cannot afford to be a parliament which is politically dead.
The Helsinki Summit takes place in a few days' time. And what will our message be?
Everything' s fine?
We have adopted the regulations? Never mind about Öçalan?
Never mind, look at it from a tourist' s perspective! In Greece, Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean, we slaughter a cock and daub its blood over the foundations of a new house.
Never mind if Öçalan is sacrificed or is in danger of being sacrificed over the foundations of Turkey' s accession to the European Union?
Is that what we are going to say to the Summit?
And for what?
For two regulations, one of which is illegal and pure sleight of hand. It has made Turkey, an applicant country, out to be a developing country so as to get round the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers of the European Union.
In my view, the European Parliament should stand its ground and should allow not only Turkey but also the Turkish people into the European Union and, in the process, it should intervene to give the Turkish people the rights they have so far been denied.
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Morillon, because the Turkey dossier, as we have seen, is not an easy dossier.
We have discussed it a lot lately; today we are debating two proposals for regulations on strengthening the Customs Union and on interventions that aim to improve Turkey' s economic and social development.
We are doing this on the eve of the Helsinki European Council, where Turkey' s possible application to join the European Union will be decided, and we are doing this in a context in which we have seen Mr Abdullah Öçalan' s death sentence confirmed by the Turkish Supreme Court, followed by a request for a stay of execution from the European Court of Human Rights and a declaration by the Turkish authorities, delivered by Prime Minister Ecevit, that they would prefer the legal process to be completed, including the appeal by the defence lawyers, before making the government' s position known and before putting the issue before parliament.
Therefore, the matter is not closed and, once again, it falls to us to choose a strategy.
I believe that Parliament has decided to invest in the democratic growth of this country.
But our alternative is not a choice between, on the one hand, a position where there is a complete refusal to cooperate, as is currently the case, and on the other hand, an uncritical acceptance of events.
I would remind all Members of parliamentary Amendment No 11, which lets us keep control of the way this cooperation will develop.
The fact remains that, together with the wider picture, mentioned by many Members, and Mr Swoboda was the last person to do so, the fate of Mr Abdullah Öçalan is still a pressing matter that must be resolved once and for all.
Today, President Prodi told us that, so as not to sour Turkey' s attitude, its application to join the Union will be legitimised at Helsinki.
This is a major step forwards, but it is a shame that Turkey has not taken any such positive steps.
We are all indignant at the confirmation of the death sentence on President Öçalan, we are all united in asking for a gesture from the Turkish Government, and then there is the moratorium on capital punishment: it is likely that the sentence will be suspended, despite the government' s grave decision not to respond to the request from the Court in Strasbourg.
Of course, this is not without importance, but is it enough to convince us that Turkey has its house in order so it can join the Union? No.
Every day in Turkey human rights are violated: there are thousands of political prisoners, and union and religious freedoms, freedom of opinion and minorities' freedoms are repressed.
In the light of the extraordinary event and unilateral actions for peace, whereby the PKK chose to abandon the armed struggle and implement a ceasefire, and in the light of numerous leaders of the PKK choosing to turn themselves in to the Turkish authorities in order to reaffirm their choice of wishing to negotiate for peace, the Turkish Government gave only negative and scornful responses. Some young Kurdish refugees visiting the European Parliament asked us: will you help us return to our villages?
They have been destroyed - will you help us rebuild them? As much as I welcome and am grateful for the content of the Morillon report, I think that we must send out a strong signal by postponing this decision until the Turkish Government confirms the stay of execution and begins talks to find a solution to the Kurdish question.
There can be no double standards when it comes to the right to live.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although the two regulations being debated here today have in fact nothing to do with the debates which will be held in the General Council next Monday and in the European Council in Helsinki a few days later, I am of course aware of the fact that the political context and timing cannot be ignored here and that we must naturally discuss the overall problem of relations between the European Union and Turkey in conjunction with these two regulations and that is what most speakers have done here this evening.
I am most grateful for the debate which has been held here because it was a highly factual debate which made very valuable and important points, especially for the attention of Turkey, because Turkey will have to gauge the political mood which prevails in Europe towards its application to join the European Union.
Firstly, however, I would like to extend my most sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Morillon, for the two reports which he has submitted and to express my appreciation to him and to Mr McMillan-Scott and Mr Schwaiger for their contributions.
I think the report is so important because the European Parliament subscribes in it to the view that the European strategy represents a suitable way of extending relations between the European Union and Turkey and that financial support is needed in order to implement the strategy.
Allow me to take this opportunity to explain once again the change in strategy towards Turkey, and I certainly do not take what Mr Brie said as a reproach.
If a new Commission is not to be allowed to change the position of previous Commissions which it considers wrong, then we have no further need of a Commission.
We could use robots which just keep on applying whatever was said once at some time in the past.
I think that Mr Brie of all people will understand that you are not always willing to be arrested for something which your predecessors did.
Otherwise we could have an interesting debate on your own predecessors, couldn' t we?
I just wanted to make that clear.
What the change involves is something quite different.
The fact is that we must recognise that our previous strategies towards Turkey have not had any visible success.
We can hold endless discussions as to the reason, but the fact remains that the findings made here, that progress in Turkey is unsatisfactory, are correct.
So the question which arises is: can we do anything to change this?
The proposal made by the Commission, and which I hope Helsinki will support, is to set a parallel process in motion so that the two processes dovetail.
On the one hand, we want to bring Turkey into the European Union using precisely the instruments used to bring other candidates in and, on the other, we want to see, in parallel, a fundamental change in Turkey itself.
I repeat, a fundamental change.
I can report from my discussions with the Turkish Prime Minister and from several meetings with the Turkish Foreign Secretary over the last few days that the Turkish Government is fully aware of the need for this fundamental change in the political, economic, social and cultural areas.
More than that, I am convinced that the present Turkish Government and the parliamentary majority behind it also want this fundamental change.
At some point now we must break the vicious circle.
There is no sense in saying: once Turkey has already done certain things, then maybe we will say yes, because then Turkey will give the standard response: as Europe does not keep its promises, we have no clear European prospects and we cannot therefore negotiate the risk-strewn path to reform.
We could carry on like this for years and nothing would change, which is why the attempt being made now is reasonable, bodes well and is under our control at all times.
That is important because we do not of course want to bring a country into the European Union which, we must one day admit, will not meet the political criteria.
For the rest, it is wrong to say that there have been no interesting developments in Turkey recently.
I would like to quote just three.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, there is no question that we are witnessing a rapprochement between Greece and Turkey which we would have considered impossible six months ago.
That is not only thanks to the contribution of the Greek Government, which I have a very high opinion of and hold in great esteem; it is also thanks to the Turkish Government.
I would like to mention just one of the minor consequences of this rapprochement: when Greek and Turkish journalists work together to stop the propaganda which we have followed for years in the main media in their countries and to stop people from being wrongly informed about what is happening in their neighbouring country, then I call that very real progress indeed.
The second point is that we shall probably witness the passing of a very important law on human rights in Turkey before Helsinki.
For the first time in the history of Turkey, there will be a law which allows members of the civil service, i.e. officials, to be brought to trial for violating human rights.
For example, people allegedly responsible for torture will be brought to trial.
We take that for granted in our countries, but for Turkey it is unprecedented.
The third point I would like to make is that the Turkish Minister responsible for European integration and human rights - an interesting remit, but one which goes well together - has officially stated, following the upholding of the death sentence by the Court of Appeal, that it is not in Turkey' s interest to carry out this death sentence.
Without wishing to betray confidentiality, I can go so far as to say here that my impression is that, while the proceedings in Strasbourg are under way, the Turkish Government does not want, under any circumstances, to take a decision on the execution; their strategy is rather to use the time gained by the proceedings in Strasbourg to abolish capital punishment in Turkey.
I should like at this point to appeal again most urgently to Turkey to do so as quickly as possible.
It is not just a symbolic gesture.
The death penalty is something so final, something so final and so barbaric that we in Europe cannot sanction it.
Turkey knows full well that the abolition of capital punishment must be one of the first hurdles on the road which I referred to.
So I would be most grateful if you would vote in favour of the rapporteur' s report and uphold an old commitment which Europe entered into towards Turkey.
We too are not always in the most credible position, including vis-à-vis Turkey.
I always find it very difficult to demand something of a country, to make demands on a country to which we have made promises which we have not honoured.
A vote in favour of the two regulations would considerably improve our moral position in relation to Turkey and I consider that most important at this stage.
The ideas developed by the European Parliament in the form of the amendments tabled during the discussions tally fully, for the most part, with the Commission and I shall support most of them.
There are only a few minor points on which I cannot accept the proposed amendments as they stand and that is where the institutional balance is affected.
You must and you will understand that the Commission must take care to ensure that the distribution of roles is not changed, that the tasks are allocated as stated in the Treaties and that responsibilities cannot be mixed.
But I think that there is overall agreement on the matter itself.
I again expressly offer to provide the European Parliament with comprehensive information in advance on specific action taken and on the projects which are developed and implemented jointly with Turkey on the basis of the funding regulations, thereby guaranteeing the involvement of the European Parliament in the development of relations with Turkey at all times.
I do not know this evening what the decision will be in Helsinki next week, but I am firmly convinced that the decision which the European Parliament has to take on these two regulations will impact on the outcome of future discussions and on the decision taken by the European Council in a week' s time.
Thank you, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide
The next item is the report (A5-0065/1999) by Mrs Breyer, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air [COM(1998) 591 - C4-0135/1999 - 1998/0333(COD)].
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this directive is the second daughter directive within the framework of the directive on ambient air quality assessment and management and the proposal is part of an integrated raft of measures aimed at combating air pollution.
I think we all agree that the people of Europe should be able to breathe cleaner air and indeed the latest publication by the European Environment Agency states that the level of air pollution in most cities poses a threat to health and that almost 40 million people in the 115 largest European cities are exposed to at least one pollutant which exceeds the WHO air quality guidelines.
Despite political initiatives aimed at reducing pollution and improving air quality, it is assumed that passenger transport needs will increase drastically over the next ten years and that the number of vehicles will increase by 25%, increasing air pollution still further.
In a report this year, the WHO comes to the conclusion that air pollution caused by traffic kills even more people than car accidents and that the economic costs are high.
It is therefore important to reduce the level of air pollution, to limit the consequences for particularly vulnerable groups and to ease the burden on the health systems.
The important point about this second daughter directive is that it is the first time that a limit value has been set for benzene and carbon monoxide in the EU.
This is an important step, I would even go so far as to say that it is a milestone in air quality legislation now that, for the first time, a limit value has been set for benzene, a carcinogenic substance which can cause leukaemia.
We know that petrol and oil are sources of benzene and 80% to 85% of the benzene in the European Union comes from the combustion of petrol by road traffic.
Until now there has been no threshold value as far as health risks are concerned and therefore no level of benzene is free of risk.
The precautionary principle in the EC Treaty makes a limit value with an extremely low risk of illness compulsory, however.
The Commission has proposed an annual limit value of 5 micrograms per cubic metre of air for benzene, to be attained by 2010.
This is fully endorsed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection.
However, the Committee on the Environment does not support the Commission' s intention to give carte blanche in the form of unlimited derogations by proposing that, in the event of so-called socio-economic problems, countries may apply for a transition period of five years, which can then be extended for a further five years.
The Committee on the Environment expects the directive to be properly implemented and proposes that no more than one five-year derogation should be allowed, during which a ten microgram limit must be observed.
Other amendments have been tabled in plenary, coupling this derogation to other conditions in order to ensure - and this must be made quite clear - that these regulations are not a loophole for non-transposition of the directive.
The Committee on the Environment therefore makes it quite clear that it cannot be assumed that a twin-track environmental policy will be operated.
I think that it is extremely important, also in view of enlargement, that we set a good example and do not send out the wrong signal to applicant countries.
The Committee on the Environment would therefore like to make it clear in its proposal, which is more precise and more strict as far as derogations are concerned, that there can be no question of a twin-track environmental policy and that the aim must be to achieve a high level of protection for everyone in the EU.
The Committee also proposes that the public should be better informed in future and that the proposed measures should be extended still further by other measures.
I think that if we can manage to get the Commission to support the Committee' s proposals, then we will have reached a real milestone on the way to better air quality and we will have helped considerably to make it clear that carcinogenic substances have lost in the environmental stakes.
We want to improve the air quality in Europe, thereby making a major contribution to health protection.
Mr President, let me say on behalf of the European People' s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats that this proposal for a directive is another brick in the edifice of European air quality policy.
The air quality framework directive is implemented by issuing daughter directives on a series of air pollutants.
This is the second such daughter directive and it relates to the limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in the air and the corresponding control and information requirements.
The purpose of our proposed amendments is not only to stipulate strict environmental protection requirements but to format these requirements so that they can be transposed and complied with by all Member States.
In order to achieve this objective, certain compromises need to be made, especially with regard to our southern Member States.
From this point of view, the specifications of the European Commission and the extensive amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection are very demanding.
The Finnish Presidency is making a serious effort to make use of the new legal possibilities afforded by the Amsterdam Treaty and to bring this proposal into force after the first reading with the amendments of the European Parliament.
We all know how urgent the problem of reducing air pollution is, also with respect to climatic change.
As Mrs Breyer has already pointed out, the real aim is to improve health protection for our citizens.
On these grounds, I welcome the plan of the Finnish Presidency.
But that also means that we in the European Parliament must responsibly create the right conditions.
It is precisely for this reason that I am unable to agree with certain proposed amendments adopted by a majority in the Committee on the Environment and tabled mainly by Mrs Breyer and her group, because some are superfluous and do not help to improve the text while others have no place in this proposal for a directive because they do not concern the scope of the proposed directive.
It is for this reason that we reject a series of proposed amendments.
My proposed amendment of Article 3(2) was adopted by a large majority in committee.
In consultations with advisers, our rapporteur, Mrs Breyer, and experts, we again supplemented and tightened up this amendment.
This is proposed amendment 22, which I would ask you all to support.
I would like to thank Mrs Breyer.
She was at pains to find a consensus and it was not easy, but I think that if we confine ourselves to the basic proposed amendments which improve the Commission proposal, and this refers mainly to Amendment Nos 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 22, it should be possible to pass this important directive quickly.
I imagine, hope and expect that, in its reply, the Commission will support this directive and really pave the way for it to be implemented as quickly as possible.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by thanking and congratulating the rapporteur on her excellent report.
I particularly welcome the fact that provisions are geared at several points in the report to particularly vulnerable groups of people and the extensive duty to provide information.
The second daughter directive within the framework of improving air quality in Europe must, of course, like previous directives, meet the following objectives, namely to define and stipulate air quality objectives at European level and to create air quality assessment criteria based on standard methods.
Care must be taken to ensure that useful information on air quality is available and provided to the public.
The objective - and I think that this is the fundamental objective - is to maintain and improve air quality.
If this directive is transposed consistently and quickly, I think that we really will be one step closer to this objective.
Of the two air pollutants in the report, you will certainly have noticed that there is less discussion of carbon monoxide.
The proposed limit value of 10 micrograms/m3 over a period of eight hours, which tallies with the WHO guideline, is accepted by all parties.
This acceptance no longer applies to benzene, as you will have gathered from the previous comments.
I think that it is hugely important that, for the first time, we have an EU-wide limit value for a carcinogenic substance and it is precisely because of the high health risk, i.e. the cancer risk, and because of the precedent which it will set for other as yet unregulated carcinogenic substances, that it is important for the limit value set in this directive to be transposed into practice as quickly as possible.
My group therefore supports the Commission proposal, i.e. 5 micrograms/m3.
As far as the content is concerned, we support working towards a future reduction of this limit value, but we feel that a realistic objective will result in faster implementation at this point in time.
The real political priority as far as I am concerned is to comply with limit values in all areas, including so-called hotspots, and we must avoid overly generous derogations which will provide a loophole for non-compliance with the limit values for benzene.
Regional and local agencies must be involved in finding a solution so that air quality can be improved.
Mr President, like many British Members, I live in two worlds.
One is the place that I read about in our national newspapers.
Some of them, at least, feed their readers a diet of lies and half-truths to whip up hatred of all things European.
And the other is here; the place which actually exists, where I find myself working amongst colleagues and others trying to make this continent a better place for its citizens.
This draft directive belongs to the second of these two worlds.
Its simple aim is to cut pollution and improve the air we breathe, which circulates from one country to another without respect to national boundaries.
Who can be against that?
The public information insisted upon in the draft directive is vital and gives the opportunity to back up legal measures with the right of the public to name and shame those governments which fail to take the necessary measures to comply with this directive.
And, if we fail to achieve the targets for reducing benzene and carbon monoxide emissions, it will not be the fault of industry.
They have done their part through technological change.
It will be the fault of governments for not having the political courage to curb the use of cars in our cities.
The Liberal Democrats welcome this measure.
I anticipate us supporting all the amendments which have been tabled.
We are pleased to be sending a strong and practical message to eurosceptics everywhere that we are in Europe to make this continent a better place for us all.
Mr President, Commissioner, I too congratulate Mrs Breyer on her excellent work. We hope that this will be taken up by the Commission so that ambitious measures for fighting pollution can be quickly established.
We know that benzene causes leukaemia and that the incidence of leukaemia among children is increasing.
We also know that road transport causes considerable air pollution and, in particular, that this type of transport is unfortunately on the increase rather than on the decline.
This directive has therefore been long-awaited and must be a priority.
Although we support this report, we have sponsored some amendments, two of which I must defend more particularly.
The first is Amendment No 17 in which we ask for the removal of the derogation which, in our opinion, deprives the text of its substance and which can only delay the application of the directive.
This is the main weakness of this directive.
Also, in Amendment No 20, we suggest that the Commission lowers the benzene emission limit from five micrograms per cubic metre, as proposed by the Commission, to four micrograms per cubic metre.
This threshold must be lowered in consideration of the toxicity of benzene.
We are, of course, still a long way, perhaps a very long way, from the precautionary principle which should be guiding our policies, but I accept that this is progress and it is a start.
Mr President, clean air is a vital necessity for life.
I therefore support a daughter directive being drawn up concerning the substances carbon monoxide and benzene.
Given the high toxicity of benzene, there is a direct link between air quality and public health.
The proposed standards are ambitious: a 70% reduction in benzene emissions and a 30% reduction in CO emissions.
It is hoped that these objectives, as well as the first daughter directive for air quality, can be achieved.
Huge efforts will be required in the process.
Combustion processes in both industry and transport will need to run their course in order to restrict the emission of carbon monoxide.
At power stations, waste incineration plants, cement furnaces and in cars, there are ways of reducing the emission of carbon monoxide.
In the case of forest fires, however, very little can be done.
Preventing forest fires and other uncontrolled combustion processes could, therefore, make up a large component in the policy when this directive is transposed.
In order to prevent the emission of benzene, the use of car fuels, among other things, will need to be handled with care.
I do wonder therefore if the standard for petrol stations will be met.
If no measurements are taken at petrol stations, no action will be taken.
If measurements are taken, on the other hand, it is highly improbable that the standard for benzene will be met.
Therefore, Commissioner, I would urge the European Commission to study the section on measurements more closely.
Representative measurement is necessary here, otherwise air quality will not improve.
Mr President, reduction of air pollution and, in particular, benzene and carbon monoxide is a legitimate objective of the European Union.
Therefore, this directive must be generally welcomed.
Air sampling must be organised to give an accurate assessment of annual personal exposure levels, and I am concerned that some amendments that call for roadside inlets would give a distorted picture of the problem.
Individuals are not exposed to kerb side concentrations continuously.
It is the building line which is important and that may be more than five metres from the kerb.
The unqualified derogation for benzene levels, referred to by Mrs Breyer for socio-economic reasons, at first seems bizarre.
One would have thought that communities living in our disadvantaged areas, with all their associated health problems, would be those most in need of cleaner air.
However, if this regulation were to result in the closure of a major industry in that area, the results would be counter-productive and would exacerbate the social and economic problems.
Although petrol engines are the primary source of benzene, metallurgical coke-works are also implicated.
If the most stringent aspects proposed are implemented, this part of the steel-making industry could be forced abroad, probably to eastern Europe, which brings me to my last point.
The Commission proposal does not specifically address the problems of air pollution in applicant countries; and I think it is irresponsible, given the eminent enlargement, for Parliament not to be given any information regarding pollution levels in countries like Poland and the Czech Republic; and the likely cost and time scale involved in bringing them up to exacting new standards.
Could I suggest, Mrs Wallström, that in future, when environment legislation like this is considered, the full implications regarding applicant countries be taken into account and publicised.
Mr President, Commissioner, I support the report presented by Mrs Breyer which is excellent in many respects.
Firstly, I must stress the positive effect of her public health proposals.
The Commission' s proposal, supported and furthered by this report, establishes the principle of ambient air quality assessment and management with regard to two major sources of pollution: benzene and carbon monoxide. These are both produced by road traffic.
It has rightly been emphasised that benzene is a carcinogen which causes leukaemia and that carbon monoxide can lead to toxic lesions on the heart and brain, and even to death in high concentrations.
We must not make people' s fears worse but we must ourselves realise and make others realise the dangers of not adopting realistic and necessarily stringent measures. These must allow as little derogation as possible so that we can assess, control and restrict to the minimum polluting emissions of these two noxious gases.
This is even more vital as these gases are more dangerous for children, the elderly and anyone suffering from heart or respiratory problems.
Secondly, the Breyer report is of great interest to the consumers which we all are.
Although the initial aim was to ensure that the public has easy access to up-to-date information, the rapporteur has gone further by specifying not only the frequency with which information must be made available, but also the range of media to be used in distributing this information. This is not unimportant.
The people of Europe are entitled to know about the quality of the environment in which they are living.
They must be able to judge the measures taken by the competent national or local authorities to provide the scientists with quantified data so that the air which they breathe can be improved.
These measures constitute a strong political signal about the political choices made on transport.
I would therefore invite you all to support the rapporteur without hesitation. Her proposals are both ambitious and realistic and clearly show the Council how demanding the European Parliament can be on the environment, public health and consumer protection.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the Environment Committee and in particular, of course, the rapporteur, Mrs Breyer, for her valuable report.
Thank you also for your valuable input into this discussion.
The proposal before us is the second that the Commission brings forward under the Framework Directive 96/62 on air quality assessment and management.
It will set new limit values. These limit values are based on the latest advice from the World Health Organisation.
There are many areas in which the Commission can agree with the constructive amendments proposed by the Committee.
We accept amendments that bring this proposal into line with the final position on the first air quality daughter directive, 1999/30, which was adopted in April this year.
We, therefore, accept Amendments Nos 1 and 6.
I share the Environment Committee's view that the most critical area for discussion is the limit value for benzene and the timetables for meeting it. Benzene is difficult since there is no identifiable threshold for effects.
The Commission can, in principle, accept Amendment No 2, which makes this clear.
We suggest a slight rewording in line with standard terminology; that is: "Whereas benzene is a human genotoxic carcinogen and there is no identifiable threshold below which there is no risk to human health;"
Where the limit value is concerned, the Commission believes that its proposal for an annual average concentration of 5 micrograms per cubit metre is well balanced.
It will provide a high level of protection, but should be generally achievable throughout the Union over the next ten years.
The Commission can therefore not accept the part of Amendment No 20 that would set a limit value of 4 micrograms per cubic metre.
However, it is clear that limit values for carcinogens must be kept under constant review.
The Commission will report on benzene as part of a new integrated clean air programme in 2004.
As the proposal makes clear, we will then consider whether to propose a new limit value for the longer term.
Although the Commission considers that its proposal is generally achievable by 2010, there are some uncertainties.
This is largely due to the fact that at present there is no limit value for benzene and no consistent monitoring across the Union.
It is, however, clear that the ease with which problems can be tackled depend to some extent on climate.
The Commission has, therefore, asked Parliament and Council in Article 3(2) whether this should be taken into account.
Having listened to the debates so far, the Commission feels that Member States should be able to request longer time scales for meeting the limit value for benzene, where the 2010 deadline would cause serious socio-economic problems.
It does, therefore, not accept Amendment No 17 nor the remaining part of Amendment No 20.
We do agree, however, that conditions for obtaining a derogation should be made more clear and be tightened.
On balance, the Commission now considers that it may be feasible to limit extensions to a maximum of five years.
It therefore accepts most of Amendment No 22, which we prefer to Amendment No 5.
It does not, however, feel that it can support a temporary limit value of 10 micrograms per cubit metre without information on feasibility.
The Commission cannot accept that part of Amendment No 22.
Amendment No 11 is partly related to Amendment No 22, and the Commission accepts it in part.
The Commission does not accept the part of Amendment No 11 which would insert a requirement that a more stringent limit value for benzene should be proposed in 2004.
The proposal already makes clear that the aim of the review will be to look at the latest evidence and, if necessary, to improve protection still further.
We should leave such decisions open until we have all the evidence in front of us.
The Commission can accept Amendment No 10 which points out the importance of looking at effects on sensitive populations.
The Commission agrees with the Environment Committee that indoor conditions have significant effects on health, but we do not think this proposal is the vehicle for considering how to tackle this issue.
The subject is much wider than benzene and carbon monoxide and needs, therefore, to be looked at in a wider framework.
From a technical point of view, Directive 96/62 defines ambient air as 'outdoor air' only.
The Commission cannot therefore accept Amendments Nos 3 and 12 nor the partly related Amendment No 18.
Indoor air, as I also know that Mrs Breyer is engaged in this issue, could be taken up within the framework of a new environmental action programme.
Providing good up-to-date information to the public is the key element of the new framework for improving air quality.
The Commission can accept that part of Amendment No 7 which would add to the list of means that Member States might use to inform the public about air quality.
It does not, however, accept that part of the amendment that would require Member States to make lists of organisations that get information and send them to the Commission.
It was decided during discussions of the first daughter directive that such lists would be too bureaucratic and could even be misleading.
The Commission accepts Amendment No 8, which requires better public information on carbon monoxide as an improvement to its proposal.
It can also agree in part with Amendment No 9.
Annex 6, part two, deals with data on pollution levels.
This should actively be made available to the public in line with the Aarhus Convention.
The documentation referred to in Annex 4, part three, is, however, highly technical and potentially voluminous.
It should be available on request but should not be actively disseminated.
The Commission agrees with the rapporteur that Member States should take particular care to provide information to the public in any area with extended timetables for meeting the limit value of benzene.
We can, therefore, accept Amendment No 19 in principal.
We would propose adding to Article 6(2): "Member States should pay particular attention to providing information on concentrations, plans and programmes to the public in areas referred to in Article 3(2)". The Commission can also accept Amendment No 4 in principle.
We suggest, however, replacing the words 'measured data' by the word 'concentrations'.
This shows that information must be forwarded whether it was obtained by measurement or by some other method.
A third objective of both the Air Quality Framework Directive and this proposal is to ensure that Member States assess air quality in a consistent and comparable way.
The Commission does not, however, accept Amendment No 13.
There are technical problems with the amendment as drafted, and it is unnecessary.
Member States will have to inform the Commission about measurement methods, numbers and locations of measurement stations every year.
This is already stated under the general reporting requirements of Directive 96/62 and the related Council Decision 97/101 on a reciprocal exchange of information on air quality.
The Commission also does not accept Amendment No 14.
It is not compatible with decisions of the first air quality daughter directive.
General technical advice is that for annual average limit values, measuring close to the building line better reflects the exposure of the population.
The Commission can accept Amendment No 15 in part.
It considers that this proposal should be brought into line with Directive 1999/30 by inserting the words 'where there is more than one measurement station within the zone or agglomeration at least one should be placed close to traffic and at least one should be oriented to the urban background'.
It thinks, however, that the additional requirement that at least half the stations should be traffic-oriented is over-prescriptive.
Finally, the Commission agrees with the intention of Amendment Nos 16 and 21.
Directive 96/62 allows the use of random measurement if it can be shown to be sufficiently accurate.
These amendments seek to say what that means for benzene.
Amendment No 16 follow closely the first daughter directive.
The Commission considers, however, that in the case of the annual average limit value for benzene, it is possible to demand a higher standard of accuracy equal to that set for continuous monitoring.
It can, therefore, accept Amendment No 21 in preference to Amendment No 16.
I shall close by saying that I hope it will be possible to reach a rapid agreement on this proposal.
At present, there are no Community limit values for benzene or carbon monoxide.
It is essential to get this legislation in place so that proper monitoring can start, and Member States can identify the problem areas.
This is a crucial factor to assure that public health is properly protected throughout the Union.
A final word to Mr Goodwill on enlargement, because you really have a point there.
At the moment, it is difficult to have good information on these matters and good measurement from the applicant countries.
We have to follow this very closely.
We already work together with the applicant countries and we have done screening reports as you already know.
So we have to do a great deal of work together with the applicant countries and you have an important point.
This should be added to our list of work that we have to pursue from now on.
So, thank you for that; and thank you for the discussion.
Thank you, Commissioner, for your full and documented answer.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Carbon dioxide emissions from new cars
The next item is the recommendation for second reading (A5­0064/1999) by Mrs González Álvarez, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a scheme to monitor the average specific emissions of carbon dioxide from new passenger cars [COM(1998) 348 - C5­0041/1999 - 1998/0202(COD)].
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as indicated by the President, this is the second reading of a common position established by the Council on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles.
We must remember that the intention behind this second reading is to meet the Kyoto objectives, subsequently approved in Bonn, of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. We continue to feel that these objectives are modest.
Given the Environment Agency' s report which stated that emissions must be reduced by 30%, the proposed objectives are definitely modest.
However, we are pleased with this common position which is heading in the right direction of preventing new cars from emitting increasing amounts of carbon dioxide.
At first reading, 45 amendments were tabled in the Committee on the Environment. They were approved by a large majority.
Of these 45 amendments, 29 were adopted in plenary. The Council should be thanked for having included a large proportion of these 29 amendments in the common position.
However, there are 10 amendments which we are tabling again as they were approved, with just one abstention, by over 40 votes in the Committee on the Environment.
These amendments concern some of the issues which, at first reading, seemed important to the majority of the Committee on the Environment.
Some only involve a change of words, such as Amendment No 1, which states that greenhouse gases, in this case carbon dioxide, should not just be stabilised but also reduced.
Amendment No 2 proposes monitoring on an objective basis.
We have made a small change to this at the Commission' s suggestion.
In Amendment No 3 we indicate the legal framework which should be provided in case the voluntary agreements fail.
I would remind you that this House in general, and the Committee on the Environment in particular, has little faith in effective results being achieved by voluntary agreements.
This is why we propose establishing a legal framework.
We also mention tax incentives and the inclusion of commercial vehicles. The latter must not be omitted from the proposal given that they are responsible for a significant proportion of carbon dioxide emissions.
We propose a change to the method of data collection if results are not achieved within a certain period of time.
The Council' s common position itself mentions that the Member States have a variety of data collection proposals.
In addition, we ask for a report on the operation of this method for December 2002.
At the suggestion of the Commission, we have also made a small change to this.
We would have liked this report by June 2002 but we have accepted December in order to allow more time.
In the report which the Commission must present to the Council and the European Parliament, we also want an analysis of whether the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is due to the technical measures of industrialists or to consumer habits.
Amendment No 10, which the Commission and Council accept, refers to the weight and size of cars.
We thank the Council and Commission for having accepted certain amendments.
However, we must insist on some of these 10 amendments which we are tabling again because they were approved practically unanimously, with one abstention, in the Committee on the Environment.
Even the Commission and Council representatives have said that they are still studying some of these amendments, for example the one on tax incentives and the inclusion of commercial vehicles.
We therefore feel that these amendments are simply supporting this study process of the Commission and Council on, for example, tax incentives and commercial vehicles.
These are easy amendments for the Commission and Council to accept.
We are perfectly well aware of the difficulties faced by the Council in convincing the fifteen Member States of a proposal of this nature.
Yet we must say that, having consulted practically all the groups, they stress that we must keep these amendments and so I defend the proposal from the Committee on the Environment.
Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the PPE group and, more importantly, on behalf of my colleague, Marlies Flemming, who is attending the WTO negotiations for the Committee on the Environment and is therefore unfortunately unable to take the floor here today.
The original Commission proposal sought to set up a monitoring system to provide reliable information on CO2 emissions from new cars.
The proposal forms part of the European Community strategy to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption.
Other elements of this strategy are an agreement with the automobile industry on reducing CO2 emissions by a certain deadline and a fuel consumption labelling system in order to make it easier for consumers to choose a new car.
This strategy is certainly a logical one because we know that about half of all CO2 emissions are caused by traffic; however, we should also note that about 12% of all CO2 emissions are emitted in the European Union and about 88% in the rest of the world.
The Council of Ministers has adopted a number of amendments tabled by the European Parliament at first reading which strengthen the original Commission proposal.
These amendments refer, for example, to the Kyoto protocol, the importance of collecting data so that the voluntary agreement to reduce CO2 emissions from cars by 2003 can be properly monitored, the European Commission' s undertaking to report on the monitoring data forwarded by Member States to the European Parliament and, finally, some additions to the information to be forwarded.
We therefore welcome the Council' s common position.
If we are to create an efficient monitoring system without too much delay, we need to adopt this proposal as quickly as possible.
The decision could then enter into force this year.
That would mean that the year 2000 would be the first year for which data then needed to be compiled.
Mr President, Commissioner, I think that there are still three controversial points in this directive which we also need to discuss.
In order to do so, we need to consider briefly why this directive has even been tabled. Surely not because it is fun to collect data; enough data is being collected already.
No, it is because we have concluded a voluntary agreement with the motor industry.
That is the first time that we have done so at European level.
We need to have instruments so that we can monitor this undertaking. That is why we have tabled this directive and that is why this directive needs to be a suitable instrument which really can be used for monitoring purposes.
There are therefore three points, I think, which need to be included in the directive and in this respect I support the excellent work carried out by the rapporteur.
First: we must make it clear that if the monitoring data show that the voluntary undertaking does not work, then legislation will follow.
In other words, there needs to be a link between monitoring and legislation if the figures prove unequivocally that the undertakings are not being complied with.
That needs to be added.
Secondly: we also need clear rules on using the data.
It is no good filing the data and leaving the files locked away in a cupboard somewhere. They must be the basis in 2002 for monitoring the voluntary undertaking.
We need an independent data register for monitoring the voluntary undertaking and I feel that this needs to be clearly stated in the directive.
Thirdly: the voluntary undertaking by the motor industry, both in Europe and in Japan and Korea, refers to technical measures to reduce CO2 through better engines, lighter vehicles etc.
That also needs to be monitored.
If CO2 consumption drops due to changes in purchasing patterns, because suddenly we all want to buy three-litre cars, then that is something else.
We therefore need a clear division between technical measures and consumer patterns and this too needs to be integrated into the directive so that this instrument really can be used in line with the intention which brought about the directive in the first place.
So let us add these three points to the directive so that we have a proper, efficient instrument for monitoring this voluntary agreement which, after all, is an experiment for the European Union.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to begin by thanking the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and, in particular, its rapporteur, Mrs González Álvarez, for dealing with this matter so quickly. It is in fact in all the parties' interests that this decision should be taken without further delay so that we might set in motion an objective monitoring of the environmental agreements which have been made with the car industry.
Mrs González Álvarez pointed out in her recommendation that the common position contains many of the points of view which the European Parliament presented in its first reading.
As Mrs Schleicher said, Mrs Flemming has stated that she could accept the common position without any further changes.
It is important that we should be clear that it will only be possible for this decision to come into force during 1999 if the common position is accepted in its current version. Otherwise, we shall lose a whole calendar year in which we could be collecting data.
Where the Amendments which have been submitted are concerned, we can give our full support to three proposals for possible improvements to the common position, namely Amendment No 3, part 1, together with Amendment Nos 7 and 10.
We can also support a number of further Amendments in principle: Amendment No 2 and Amendment No 4, part 2, together with Amendment No 9, even if we consider that they need to be reformulated.
I want briefly to talk about the justifications behind the position adopted by the Commission.
First and foremost, I want to comment on Amendment No 2 about also allowing other motor vehicles to be covered by the decision.
As a consequence of the desire expressed by the European Parliament at the first reading, the Commission is at present taking the first steps to include light goods vehicles' fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in the legislation concerning type approval.
This applies therefore to vehicles in category M1.
The Commission will then see if it is possible to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from such vehicles.
The Commission agrees that vehicles in category M1 are the most important target group for such measures.
There are therefore no plans at present to look into the question of whether other types of vehicle might be included, mainly because vehicles such as lorries are expected in any case to be highly fuel-efficient or because the contribution of, for example, two-wheeled vehicles to local carbon dioxide emissions is not great.
It is the Commission' s intention to take account of these factors and to reformulate the proposed text in the following way: "The Commission is to investigate the possibility of submitting appropriate proposals concerning harmonised procedures for measuring the specific carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles in category M1 in accordance with Annex No 3 to Directive 70/156."
When it comes to Amendment No 4, part 2 concerning other parts of the strategy in respect of carbon dioxide and vehicles, we consider that the first part of that Amendment is almost entirely covered by justification 6 in the common position.
We cannot accept this part of the Amendment because it ought to include a reference to the Community objective of 120 g/km.
The year by which this objective is to be achieved, namely 2010, has however been left out of the European Parliament' s Amendment.
In the second part of the proposed justification, reference is made to the second and third pillars in the strategy concerning carbon dioxide and private cars and, specifically, to consumer information and the employment of tax measures.
The directive concerning consumer information was adopted by the European Parliament at the second reading on 4 November of this year and may therefore be considered to have been accepted in accordance with the common position. There is therefore no reason to refer to this matter again.
Because tax measures are an important factor in the strategy, it may well be worth including a reference to these.
In view of the fact that the Commission is already in the process of investigating the possibility of a frame of reference, the proposed justification ought to reflect this situation in a correct manner.
The Commission proposes another variant, worded as follows: "The Commission is investigating the possibility of introducing a frame of reference for tax measures which may encourage the use of fuel-efficient private cars."
With regard to Amendment No 9 concerning the content of the annual report, the rapporteur wants to add a new Article to clarify what the annual report is to contain. The report is to include an analysis of the extent to which changes in carbon dioxide emissions depend upon manufacturers' initiatives or upon factors which have to do with the strategy concerning carbon dioxide and cars.
An analysis of this kind is important for discovering whether manufacturers are in fact carrying out the tasks to which they have committed themselves within the framework of the environmental agreement.
This is the case, for example, in relation to the partial objectives which have been set for the year 2003 and naturally also in relation to the final objectives for the year 2008.
However, an analysis of this kind requires a major effort in developing relevant methods and technical research, as well as intensive discussions with the manufacturers. It will also take some years before it is apparent whether any developments worth mentioning have in fact taken place.
The Commission will therefore probably not act upon the first assessment until the time limits for the partial and final objectives have expired. This ought to be reflected in the text of the decision.
We therefore propose the following reformulation. I quote: "In the reports for the year by which the partial objective is to have been achieved and for the year by which the final objective is to have been achieved, it shall be stated whether the reductions are due to technical measures taken by the manufacturers or whether there are other reasons, such as a change in behaviour on the part of consumers."
We have difficulty in accepting the remaining Amendments, that is to say Amendment No 1, Amendment No 3, part 2, Amendment No 4, part 1 and Amendments Nos 5, 6 and 8 which neither improve nor clarify the text.
Finally, I want to say a few words about Amendment No 3, part 2.
Here, it is prescribed that the Commission is to compose a legal framework for environmental agreements.
I want to emphasise that the European Parliament' s involvement in the environmental agreements is a crucial issue for me.
As I have already explained before the plenary sitting on 3 November, I do not intend to present any new proposals for environmental agreements as long as the European Parliament' s role remains undecided.
We are therefore now putting together a general document concerning environmental agreements, their legal framework and the institutional procedures relating to them.
When it comes to such agreements as have already been made, or are in the process of being made, for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from private cars, the Commission has, on a number of occasions, pointed out that legislation concerning the limits for carbon dioxide emissions will be considered if the car industry does not fulfil its commitments.
Now would not be the appropriate time, however, to introduce the technical preparations for such legislation. This would be to send out the wrong message to industry.
To summarise, I should like to say that I am very satisfied with the fact that the common position has, on the whole, obtained such a positive reception from the rapporteur and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection.
I hope now that this House can offer its support so that the decision can be taken as quickly as possible.
We shall then have the opportunity to monitor in sufficient detail the way in which the environmental agreements concluded with the car industry are being implemented.
If plenary considers it necessary to submit more Amendments, the Commission is, in certain cases, prepared to support them, either in full or in principle.
Thank you, Commissioner, for your detailed replies to the rapporteur and speakers in this debate.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Safety and health of workers at risk from explosive atmospheres
The next item is the report (A5-0074/1999) by Mr Pronk, 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 minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (Fifteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) [C5-0221/1999 - 1995/0235(COD)].
Mr President, this is a report on health and safety.
There have been many, but this report stands out because it will be the first report to be adopted under codecision, provided that, tomorrow, the House agrees with our recommendations to indeed approve the agreement with the Council.
I believe that this is what is of such historic importance about this report.
In fact, it is also the first report in the social sphere that has ever gone through under codecision.
Parliament has always made a fuss about the fact that not enough emphasis has been placed on the social dimension in legislative practice.
We did not encounter a great deal of problems with the Council regarding this report.
This is also reflected in the number of amendments which this Parliament brought at second reading.
We do have to note, of course, that all this took rather a long time.
This special directive implements the framework directive which was adopted in 1989.
Our first reading was in 1996.
It is now 1999.
The directive will not enter into effect until 2003.
This illustrates that it sometimes all takes longer sometimes than expected.
If we consider the numbers of people still being killed due to unsafe working conditions, then more urgency is needed.
So what was the key point in the negotiations with the Council? This is when codecision proves so important.
It mainly concerned the publication of what we have agreed upon here.
We at the Parliament requested right from the outset that companies be informed of European legislation.
This legislation is, of course, also included in national legislation, albeit in a covert way.
Moreover, national legislation is far from adequately disseminated.
Initially, the Council was strongly opposed to this.
We went through some tough negotiations.
It is, of course, a little ironic that a provision which may prove important to all companies should be kept more or less concealed.
This brings me to my second point of concern.
We now have more or less an actual framework of minimum directives in terms of health and safety.
This is of great importance.
A number of countries have not yet implemented certain directives.
The Commission should be commended for bringing a number of these countries before the Court of Justice over the past couple of years and also for the fact that changes have been made.
But it appears that it still takes much longer to tackle countries in this sector than it does in others.
This is regrettable.
Practical benchmarking, however, which is very important, is still not up to scratch because, after all, what it comes down to is that more or less the same minimum requirements apply within a company, be it in Denmark or in Spain.
This benefits competitive relationships but it mainly benefits those employed within those companies.
If there is no exchange, if the practical benchmarks are not equal, then something else is still lacking.
We have the strong impression that this still has not been regulated terribly well.
This is the very reason why this vade mecum, as we called it initially, is so important.
It may be of interest that this vade mecum has now turned into a guide. Why is this?
It is because the Council could not come to terms with the word "vade mecum" for some unknown reason.
The term vade mecum is understood in most European countries without any explanation, without a translation and a complex, long, reasonably procedural title will, of course, be less easily understood.
But Parliament made this concession.
We will not dwell on this any further.
It remains important, however, that everyone is informed of these directives and, above all, that they can apply them.
A whole raft of companies do not apply those directives properly. This is not because they refuse to, it is simply because they are not sufficiently aware of the possibilities for applying them.
Such a guide may be helpful in this, and this is how we voluntarily reach not harmonisation but minimum standards.
I think that this is how we will gradually grow closer together.
I would ask the Commission to take a much harder line on this practical benchmarking than it has done in the past.
We have a new Commissioner and I know that she has a great deal of experience in this field.
Maybe we can expect fresh momentum in this respect too.
Mr President, I am a great believer in health and safety, but I am also a great believer that we are not going to change everything by legislation.
If we could legislate away things like poverty, accidents, illness and death, then we should have done it yesterday, but we are not going to do that.
That being said, there are things we can do at European level, which include changing the culture, the culture where we work, the culture we live in.
This report by Mr Pronk goes some way towards doing that and doing it very well.
He should be congratulated on all that, because he has brought excellent conclusions into this report.
He has made history as well, by having the first report to go through under codecision and the first report on health and safety.
It augurs very well for the future of what we should hope to achieve through this process, because Parliament has been very responsible in its approach to using codecision.
Parliament is not always pointed to as being responsible or informed, but in this particular area we were better informed and, in some respects, I feel, more responsible.
It has made spectacular progress in the area of small to medium-sized enterprises, by far the biggest sector we could ever hope to address.
This is where most accidents occur in the workplace and yet there is undisguised dismay amongst myself and other colleagues at the fact that we take very little account of this.
You are 50% more likely to have an accident at work if you work for a small to medium-sized business.
The information which will be provided, which was a vade mecum in this report, to small businesses and which they now have a right to be informed about, will go a long way in helping to change the culture in the workplace.
It should be used in other reports in other areas, and we should learn from that.
On the other hand, as a participant in the conciliation process, I was pleased at the very real response of the Council to Parliament' s amendments and take note for future reference about how we can achieve the various amendments and positions we wish.
Under the former procedure of cooperation of course we had our successes and the Commission was very much a part of that, and we still enjoy that acceptable relationship.
Safety is one of those areas where we can always find middle ground to achieve what we really want.
It is time now for governments to listen to what this Parliament has to say 100% of the time and for those governments to act.
Parliament is not in opposition to other institutions, it is a balance and it is a brake.
It is unfortunately precisely because ministers were too close together, too keen to have cosy relationships away from scrutiny at European level, that we now have this process.
It introduces transparency and clarity, and that can only be good for the trust of the people of Europe.
Many lives will be affected by this report and the work that has gone into it, many businesses will be pleasantly surprised by the balanced outcome, and if there was more work like this, perhaps even Europe would become popular in places like Britain, who knows?
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Pronk on the constructive way in which this report came into being.
It is vital to protect the safety of employees anywhere in Europe, or anywhere in the world, for that matter.
It is regrettable that I did not get involved in this report until later because I was elected for the first time in July.
As Mr Pronk indicated, they have been working on this since 1996.
Why did I say this?
It is an excellent report and we give it our full backing, but it is regrettable that, in my opinion, the warning panel, in particular, is still rather unclear: a triangular panel with a red border and black letters spelling "EX".
To someone like me, a layperson in the field of explosive atmospheres, this could mean anything.
Is it a warning concerning my ex-partner who can be rather explosive? Are they explosives or whatever?
I think it would be a good idea if the same panel, the same warning sign or pictogram, could be used as is used throughout the international world of transport. In fact, I also brought this to Committee, I even sent a letter questioning this very point.
I received a reply, upon which I do not wish to elaborate.
I do hope, however, that in the short term, the same warning panel will be used across the board.
Mr President, I too am new.
I shall stand up anyway, although I am far too tall for this device.
First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work he has done.
What did occur to me, however, even as a new Member, was that the original proposals have been toned down quite considerably and that he is actually deeply regretful, despite what has been achieved.
Unfortunately, the need for this type of directive is underlined regularly, and especially the fact that it is an evolving process.
In the Netherlands, for example, there have been a number of explosions at the same factories year after year, caused by dust.
The knowledge as to how exactly this happened is lacking.
Another repercussion is that repair activities are carried out by hired companies. As a result, the overall business layout is unclear, especially to these temporary staff.
This is exactly why it is important to characterise and classify companies, workstations and suchlike effectively, and to divide these into areas, etc.
This is included in the proposal.
It is, however, a cause for great concern that, although there are minimum directives, no obligations have been laid down pursuant to the guide we discussed, let alone the provisions to be included therein.
I would therefore ask the Commissioner how the new practices will be developed technically and how the effects of hiring temporary staff will be dealt with.
In other words, have an evolving process but still ensure that there are substantial obligations in respect of minimum directives.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should also like to congratulate the Conciliation Committee as well as Mr Pronk and all those who helped to achieve this agreement.
It is particularly significant and interesting from a political point of view that, as Mr Pronk stated, we have, for the first time since the Amsterdam Treaty, a piece of legislation addressing social issues, in particular health and safety issues, which has been passed through under the codecision procedure.
The directive is extremely important and concerns workers in particularly hazardous places who are exposed to explosive atmospheres.
As you know, this follows a long dialogue and extensive negotiations between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament on this matter.
Despite it taking so long, almost four years, to achieve this result, Parliament' s insistence on certain amendments has proved to be fruitful.
With reference to Mr Pronk' s report, I too should like to stress that the adoption of Amendment Nos 4 and 5 on information to undertakings and vade mecum, which I agree could be improved and made more binding - not forgetting that these amendments were accepted at second reading - just goes to show the importance of the codecision and cooperation procedures of Parliament and the Commission.
I would also like to mention the matter of the application of this directive.
Of course, it is not the application of this particular directive which raises problems, but of all directives.
Admittedly, the Commission' s control mechanism is not tight enough to monitor all the Member States and all the directives that are passed.
Nevertheless, I did state, and this is a commitment on the part of the Commission, that every effort would be made, in collaboration with the Member States and in collaboration with all the Directorates and Commission mechanisms, to achieve the best results.
As to the question of how it will be applied to companies themselves, whether there will be problems with subcontracting and part-time employment, I should like to tie my answer in with the Commission' s other policies and measures.
Thus, how undertakings are linked and how sub-contracting works is up to each Member State.
Nevertheless, special training for workers and special programmes for the health and safety of workers and employers are included in the employment strategy guidelines and are funded by the European Social Fund and we also have benchmarking between countries in order to improve health and safety conditions as best we can.
In closing, I concur with Mr Skinner that we cannot merely legislate away such a serious problem as health and safety but we believe there can be constant improvement in conjunction with policies, with resources from the social funds and, of course, with the policies of Member States.
Thank you, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Helsinki Convention
The next item is the report (A5-0044/1999) by Mr Sjöstedt, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the Community, of the amendments to the Annexes to the Convention on the protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention) [COM(1999) 128 - C4-0218/1999 - 1999/0077(CNS)].
Mr President, this report is concerned with developing and improving international cooperation with regard to the marine environment in the Baltic.
In 1974, the States around the Baltic got together to form what is known as the Helsinki Convention in order to safeguard the marine environment.
The Convention was developed further after 1992 following the extensive political transformations which had occurred at that time.
Of the European Union countries, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Germany at present subscribe to the Convention.
Moreover, the European Union is itself one of its signatories.
The three Baltic countries - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - together with Russia and Poland are also involved in the work.
The Baltic is an inland sea with very significant environmental problems.
The areas in which the rivers that run into the Baltic originate are extensive and are located in several different countries.
The outlets into the North Sea and the Atlantic are small, and discharges from agriculture, industry and private households are significant.
The salt content of the Baltic is relatively low compared with that of other seas.
What is more, there are major problems involving low oxygen content in large parts of the Baltic.
This creates a special environment, and it also creates quite a few problems for marine life.
One example is the very large variation to be found in fish stocks from year to year.
Very extensive work is already being done to clean up various sources of discharges around the Baltic.
In particular, clean-up facilities are at present being constructed in a variety of locations in Eastern Europe.
These are largely being financed by the European Union.
This report is about revising two of the Helsinki Convention' s Annexes, namely Annexes 3 and 4.
Annex 3 concerns agricultural discharges.
The changes which come about through this revision are to be implemented partly in order to reduce discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus and pesticides.
This can have a big effect, especially upon the situation regarding eutrophication and lack of oxygen in the Baltic.
Annex 4 is aimed at reducing discharges from boats and ships.
This part regulates, among other things, equipment for gathering up oil, waste and waste water in various harbours.
Both these changes are very welcome, and it has been self-evident to me as rapporteur that we should support them and say that we should vote for them.
When it comes to dealing with waste from ships, work is in progress within the European Union on a proposed Directive concerning plant for receiving waste in harbours. It is, however, important to appreciate that there remain a very great many problems within the framework of Annex 4.
This especially applies to the monitoring of waste at sea. Even when such monitoring in fact takes place, for example from the air, it has proved to be very difficult indeed to hold those responsible to account and to penalise them for the offences against the environment which are in fact being committed in the Baltic.
Where agriculture is concerned, I have looked for some kind of description of the effects which the new requirements are having upon the European Union' s sets of regulations, partly in relation to the expected enlargement of the EU to include a number of countries bordering the Baltic.
I have not found any such descriptive report at the Commission, but I believe it would have been useful to see one.
The changes to these Annexes will come into force at the end of the year. It is therefore high time to take the decision in question.
It would have been an advantage if the European Parliament had been involved in this work earlier.
Mr President, it has been shown that the amount of nutrients in the open sea area in the Gulf of Finland and in the vicinity of the shore generally increase as one moves eastwards, which is a reflection of the impact Russia has on the nutrients of the Baltic.
Quite recently, however, extensive new data has been collected covering areas right in the vicinity of the coastline, in the shallow coves of the Baltic.
No corresponding eastward growth in the amount of nutrients is discernible, but instead the areas with high levels of nutrients clearly point to local causes: agriculture, industry and the presence of summer cottages.
There are especially high levels of nutrients in the vicinity of rivers flowing into the sea, which shows that large amounts of nitric and phosphoric compounds are being carried from the land to the sea.
Nutrients have a greater effect on the fairly closed ecosystem that exists along the coast than they have in open sea areas.
For this reason, many areas of inland water near the coast need revitalising.
The coastal areas are particularly strategic from the point of view of human activity and enjoyment.
For this reason, it is vital to take action to substantially reduce the volumes of local effluent due to agriculture, housing or recreation.
For the protection of the Baltic we thus need on-going fine-tuning, with smaller-scale measures, which are also dealt with in Annexes III and IV of the Helsinki Convention now being discussed.
The report that has been prepared recommends, in addition, that the Commission should produce an analysis of the possible effects of the changes on Union legislation.
Furthermore, we should clarify whether the legislation that is being drafted, for example Agenda 2000, can have an impact on Union action under the Helsinki Convention.
The harmonisation of environmental considerations, viable agriculture, policies on livelihood, recreation and, for example, enlargement in a manner that is sustainable for the Baltic area, will naturally be a great challenge, both administratively and politically.
We need a conscious attempt at coherence.
Perhaps an initiative on the northern dimension could provide the comprehensive angle on the Baltic region we need to consider all these important areas of policy simultaneously and in a mutually compatible way.
I would also like to believe that, if it works well, the northern dimension would provide a forum to which the EU will find it appropriate to invite other key players as well, for example from the Baltic region.
For example, the Nordic Council has a long history of shaping environmental policy in the Nordic countries and in neighbouring regions.
The Nordic Council is involved in organising a parliamentary Baltic Conference, for all the countries of the Baltic to attend.
It would be natural for the EU to embark on closer talks with these countries.
The Nordic Council has shown initiative and expressed the wish to start such a dialogue with the EU.
I hope that that the northern dimension will prove to be a good, viable model for an ecologically sustainable and comprehensive development of a policy for these areas, which can be used for other areas of the Union.
Mr President, the Convention that replaced the agreement on marine protection in the Baltic region in 1992 was an important step towards improving the area' s environmental state.
The new agreement covers the whole of the Baltic Sea up to the coastlines of those states surrounding it.
In addition, and this is important, the states to sign the agreement are committed to action throughout the entire catchment area of the region, which considerably extends the impact of the agreement.
The Helsinki Convention has been a pioneer in the multilateral cooperation process among the Baltic countries.
At present there are a good number of players in the region involved in a cooperative arrangement that extends to every sector of life, from the economy to culture.
The tradition of bustling interaction that existed in the Hanseatic era is thus being revived, and before long the Baltic Sea will be an internal sea of the Union.
The programme of environmental cooperation in the Baltic region is a part of the Union' s northern dimension policy.
As we are often asked what the northern dimension policy in practice means, it is, for example, taking care of the delicate environmental conditions that exist in the Nordic regions.
The commitment in the Convention to protecting natural diversity is a necessary addition to the Convention on Fishing in the Baltic Sea.
With regard to the future, we should consider how the structures underlying the protection of the environment in the Baltic region could be organised efficiently and simply.
I myself believe that the Helsinki Commission could provide a framework, not only for the main area of focus, the protection of the marine environment, but also the implementation of the Baltic Sea Agenda 21 programme, and the possible coordination of sound regional planning.
The long-term aim on the whole could be to extend the Helsinki Convention to cover the whole of the Baltic region with the objective of applying in practice the principle of sustainable development.
The revised Convention could also serve as a model for other regions.
Mr President, these are true and important things which all the previous speakers have said, to the effect that the Baltic is a sick sea and that the EU has a major responsibility for this.
Every necessary measure needs therefore to be taken in order to improve the situation.
I think that Mrs Myller expressed a lot of points of view in her statement which we must make good use of.
I think it is important for us to see what opportunities we have to renew the Baltic Commission' s work in conjunction with the water planning directive, which we are also discussing here.
I have tried on a number of occasions to bring together these two areas of expertise on the basis that we should be looking at both at the same time and at the ways in which effective use might be made of the Helsinki Commission for this purpose.
My hope is that it might be possible to bring together at least those who are now here in the Chamber in order to look into this.
Annex 3 itself, relating to agriculture, does not perhaps inspire particularly great hope that it might entail anything new compared, for example, with the environmental strategies and programmes we already have.
On the other hand, I hope that, next week in Helsinki, we can, as has been said, approve ambitious objectives for agriculture and the environment.
As we think of renewing the work, it is also important that the Helsinki Commission' s efforts should be open to public scrutiny.
We were therefore very disappointed to see that the results of the work carried out a good year ago on hot spots was not published because Sweden opposed any such publication.
This was a small blemish on what was otherwise very sound work.
I would add that the work on creating plant for receiving waste is extremely important.
I believe that we must watch our step so that we do not jeopardise what we have here in this Convention and that we should not in any way be trying to achieve something else - a 'best' which would in actual fact be the 'enemy of the good' .
Mr President, I can see that we have a Nordic dimension to the Chamber this evening.
Just as the rapporteur pointed out in his report, and also here, the changes to Annexes 3 and 4 to the Convention on the Baltic' s marine environment have already been adopted and will come into force in a month' s time.
Consulting the European Parliament is therefore a procedure which cannot have any real effect.
That is naturally a little odd and also rather annoying.
Fortunately, the changes to the Convention are very good indeed for environmental work.
They are aimed at reducing agricultural discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus and, especially, pesticides and at reducing discharges from ships and pleasurecraft.
We know that some very single-minded environmental work and some purposeful political decisions are required in order to restore the ecological balance of the Baltic.
Changes to the Helsinki Convention contain general rules which will also certainly have an effect on EU legislation, especially with regard to agricultural policy.
It would have been interesting if we had had an opportunity to discuss this issue and express views on it.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all, of course, to thank the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and also rapporteur Sjöstedt for the work he has done on elucidating the changes to Annexes 3 and 4 of the Helsinki Convention.
As you know, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection adopted the report on 19 October 1999.
I think it is good that we have had the opportunity to discuss this in the House today.
It is with satisfaction, of course, that I note that the rapporteur welcomes the proposed changes to the Convention. The proposal in fact moves that the changes to the two Annexes should be adopted by the European Community.
As mentioned, Annex 3 is mainly concerned with agricultural discharges.
The proposed changes are, in fact, aimed at reducing discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus and pesticides used in agriculture.
The purpose of the other Annex is to reduce discharges from ships.
Regarding Mr Sjöstedt' s concern that the Commission would not look adequately at the changes that need to be made and his concern about the effects which this would necessarily have on EU legislation, he is worrying unnecessarily.
There are no major problems.
The Commission has naturally made sure that we can make these changes and shall do so.
If the Commission signs a Convention, we must also ensure that we can honour the commitments in such a Convention, something which will not cause any problems.
There was also a Finnish front here which I have to say I agree with.
I think there is an important link with the northern dimension and that we should ideally be marrying the Helsinki Convention and the work that is being done under the heading of the northern dimension.
I therefore think that remarks of this kind are in order.
The Commission is also working along those lines, that is to say to ensure that we can coordinate, and benefit from, the work that is being done in different places. This can reinforce the environmental work being done in connection with the Baltic.
In addition, the Helsinki Convention ought to support the work by means of sustainable development for the Baltic.
Discussions to this effect have begun.
We in the Commission are therefore aware of the need for increased environmental cooperation in the Baltic region.
We are convinced that the changes to the Convention constitute an important, albeit small, contribution towards achieving that goal.
The report criticises the way in which the adoption procedure was carried out.
The rapporteur maintains that the changes had already been adopted on 1 January 1999 and that the work carried out in the European Parliament was therefore meaningless.
It is true that the Convention' s executive body, HELCOM adopted the changes on 29 March 1998 and that the parties to the Treaty were given the deadline of 1 January 1999 to produce changes.
However, the Commission lodged an incidental objection to make it possible to consult with the European Parliament and the Council.
That objection still applies.
The Commission' s interpretation of the situation is therefore that, as long as the Commission has not withdrawn its incidental objection, the changes have not come into force.
The consultation procedure is therefore valid, and I should also like to thank you in the European Parliament for your contributions.
Thank you, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Marketing of forest reproductive material
The next item is the report (A5-0072/1999) by Mr Pesälä, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council directive on the marketing of forest reproductive material [COM(1999) 188 - C5-0128/1999 - 1999/0092(CNS)].
Mr President, this directive on the marketing of forest reproductive material is really based on the merger of two earlier directives.
In addition, there has been considerable progress made in research and development over the decades and, for that reason too, it is naturally a good idea to review matters.
Furthermore, the accession of Sweden, Austria and Finland meant that the EU' s forest resources immediately doubled.
On account of all this, it is excellent that these reviews and adjustments are being undertaken.
In addition, there is the matter of harmonisation with OECD schemes.
That is also a good thing and will enable us in future to trade in this material beyond the borders of the EU, which should also be taken into consideration.
The material in question has now been classified into four categories, whereas previously there were two.
This now guarantees there will be a sort of certificate, a guarantee that the right goods get to the right place.
It ensures that no errors - which the large afforested countries of the north have also experienced - occur.
Details relating to the area of provenance must also be defined on a map.
The maps are to be sent to the Commission and a comprehensive list of goods associated with forest reproduction must also be kept.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development tabled numerous amendments, and they were mainly targeted at the timetable for implementation.
The Commission had proposed too tight a schedule and, for that reason, the entry into force of the directive has been postponed until 2003, so that the Member States can revise legislation as called for by this directive. The transition period for some countries was also taken into account and thus the period of transition was increased by a couple of years for those countries whose period of transition would otherwise have expired.
In some countries there are rather large stocks because good seed years only occur at intervals of 10 to 15 years, and so the seeds have to be stored for very long periods of time in order that stocks are not exhausted.
The possibility of utilising and exhausting stocks was a very important issue, as has been remarked upon in this report.
In addition, we spoke a lot about genetic resources. That is a very sensitive issue at the moment and, naturally, we tried to bring this proposal in line with EU practice.
Similarly, this proposal also consider the health of plants and changes in their health.
As I understand it, there will be two more amendments to this report in tomorrow' s vote, if I may be allowed to comment briefly on them.
As rapporteur, I can agree with Amendment No 23 if three words are added to the recital where the amendment will appear: "special climatic conditions of certain regions, such as the Alps, the Mediterranean and northern regions" .
If this is added I will be able to agree to it, as rapporteur.
As for Amendment No 24, which has also been made for tomorrow, I can state that this amendment is now already incorporated into Article 4(3)(a), which is a new subparagraph and which was added for precisely this purpose.
Mr President, I am very pleased about this new proposal concerning forest reproductive material because it offers new opportunities or, rather, gives the old opportunities a new lease of life, above all with a view to there being several categories of material.
The expression of known origin will make it possible to maintain the genetic and biological diversity of the forest in local regions and on land given over to forests.
True, our forests are certainly producers of renewable material, but they are also infinitely more than just raw materials.
The forest is also home to a great diversity of biological life. It is also an important means of trapping carbon dioxide and it is perhaps the earth' s most important regulator of the climate and water supply.
The forest also has a spiritual dimension. It represents peace and quiet, silence and tranquillity for stressed-out urban men and women, especially if they were born in the northern dimension.
It is therefore important that forests be treated as diverse in their own right and as having a diversity of functions.
I therefore repeat that I am very glad that, as the proposal now reads, there exists this opportunity to maintain the genetic and biological diversity of the forests.
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, allow me to start by thanking the rapporteur for his excellent cooperation in drafting the report.
I speak on behalf of my group when I say that we fully support the rapporteur.
Europe is a continent rich in forests and forests are tremendously important.
We should all bear in mind the fact that the use of forests is not only in the economic interest, it is, above all, in the environmental interest of all of us.
What I mean is that forests have a multi-functional role.
I should like to remind you today of the major avalanche catastrophe a year ago in Galtür because it demonstrates how important it is for all of us to treat nature with respect; the alpine area in particular is a very sensitive zone, as people who know the area are obliged to testify time and time again.
Not only the people who live in the Alps, but everyone who likes to go on skiing or walking holidays in the Alps each year, appreciates an intact mountain environment in which the dangers are kept to a minimum.
The reforestation of the Bannwald is particularly important.
That is why reproductive material, which guarantees that forests will withstand the harsh climate, is absolutely essential and indispensable to the safety of the Alps.
I consider it absolutely essential for the reproductive material to come from the very area where the climatic conditions apply genuinely, and for the reproductive material to be appropriate to the climatic conditions.
Member States must therefore have the facility to stipulate the selection criteria for reproductive material in a non-bureaucratic manner, because nothing will be more devastating than when it is too late to prevent damage to the forest land as a whole.
I should like to point out that it is not only the Alps but, above all, the Nordic areas, the polar areas and also the southern areas which have special requirements in this respect.
Mr President, Commissioner, we welcome this proposal for a directive for several reasons, one of which is the extension of its scope.
It now encompasses not only wood production but also other forest objectives such as cork and the protection of genetic resources.
We should also congratulate ourselves because it now identifies different categories and encourages the protection given by reforestation and not just wood production.
It allows maximum variability from the genetic viewpoint, thereby guaranteeing adaptation.
In the main the proposal responds to the differing needs of the Member States and includes the principle of subsidiarity.
The accession of the Nordic and Mediterranean countries to the European Union is the main reason for updating the current directive which regulates the marketing of forest plants and seeds and which has not been substantially amended since 1975.
The text of the directive coincides on the basic aspects of objective, number of categories, definitions of basic materials and so on with the world' s other main system of marketing forest reproductive material, namely the OECD.
Work has been carried out in recent years to update this system and an improved text is now pending approval by the Council.
Coherence between these texts can only assist the marketing of these materials.
I must also congratulate Mr Pesälä on his report.
I agree that the date set for the entry into force of the directive cannot be 1 January 2000 but must be postponed by at least three years to give the Member States time to comply with the directive.
Other amendments by other Members, such as those tabled by Mrs Schierhuber, must also be welcomed. They include an amendment on the strengthening of the control of trade flows by an official certificate of origin.
However, there is one very important point which we must consider. The explanatory statement specified that the external quality of materials was guaranteed, yet point (d) of Annex VII deals with this in a very general manner.
This is not a trivial issue.
Plant quality is essential in the Mediterranean environment where reforestation is carried out under very difficult conditions.
Experience has taught us that plants of certain sizes cannot survive in a particular environment. This is true in many areas of southern Europe where the drought conditions are extreme.
In order to assist their establishment, this means using container-grown plants with good root systems, whereas in other countries plants without any roots can successfully grow.
The external quality of plants has a big impact, not only on the percentage which survive, which can range from 20% to 85%, but also on their future development in the extremely harsh conditions of their transfer to this climate.
External quality is one of the factors which determines the quality of the woodland of the future.
A lack of regulation of the external quality of plants may therefore cause very serious problems as this will allow all sizes of plant to be placed on the market.
You should bear in mind that some Member States already have laws on this subject.
It is in the interests of the whole European environment to ensure that plantations are correctly established so that a large proportion do not fail.
The plants must be suitable and adaptable because, unfortunately, in many corners of the European Union, you cannot plant what you want, only what is practical.
To ensure that adequate consideration is given to this unresolved problem in the text of the proposal, the Council is trying to reach agreement on the incorporation of a new point 7. This will contain the external characteristics which must be satisfied, for their marketing in the Mediterranean areas of the Community, by the forest species best adapted to the difficult soil and climate conditions of these areas.
I applaud and encourage this solution to which I hope the European Commission will agree.
Mr President, Commissioner, I am reminded in this context of the saying: they cannot see the wood for the trees.
It is reasonable that this directive needs to be updated as a result of the accession of new Member States and the development of the single market and forest research.
It is reasonable that EU labelling should be harmonised in order to facilitate trade within the EU and with the OECD.
But the directive takes no account of the differing needs of the Member States.
In the view of our specialists in Germany, in the view of the German forestry industry and the forest nursery industry, this new directive will have a lasting negative impact.
Monitoring should be confined to forest undertakings and should not, as the report provides, apply to all undertakings, as these requirements would then affect undertakings which produce no forest reproductive material at all.
The willingness of successive farmers to plant forests in my region is receding sharply.
This increasing prevalent basic attitude is dictated by financial considerations.
I would just like to say to the House that I know what I am talking about because the forest economy has longed played an important role in our own undertaking and I would like in this context to point out the life-threatening situation in the Germany forest nurseries.
Given the change in forestry in my country towards natural regeneration, massive cutbacks in planting requirements and a lack of public funds, I feel that I really must draw the House' s attention to this.
The monitoring system is now supposed to be up and running by 2003.
Our experts tell me that they think this deadline is too short.
The directive is unacceptable in this respect; it fails to take account of geographical and regional differences within the EU.
In northern countries we have to cope with huge forest areas with a single registration number, so that the new regulation holds no problem whatsoever in store for these areas.
I would like to more or less keep to my allotted time, but we should bear in mind during the overall debate that we must not only take account of the Nordic point of view and we must not only consider the enthusiasm of mountain lovers in Austria; we in the middle of the EU, and this includes Germany, set great store by open clauses, so that the whole system can remain truly practicable.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and of course its rapporteur, Mr Pesälä, for the very positive approach adopted towards the Commission proposal; and the Commission appreciates the broad acceptance of its proposal.
The present proposal aims to update the current legislation on the marketing of forest reproductive material to take account of the accession of new Member States since 1975, the internal market and scientific advances.
Twenty-two amendments have been proposed.
I can accept the large majority of them as they stand or with minor modification in respect of their drafting or presentation.
The Commission can accept the Amendment No 23 proposed now by Mr Pesälä.
I would like to comment on the four amendments which the Commission cannot accept.
Firstly, I will comment on Amendment No 4.
According to the proposed amendment, an explicit reference to the principle of subsidiarity should be inserted within the recitals.
The Commission is not in favour.
The proposal is based on Article 37 of the Treaty, and therefore falls within the exclusive competence of the Community.
However, the Commission proposal has fully recognised the specificity of the conditions of certain Member States or certain parts thereof and the text explicitly reflects this position.
Then we come to Amendment No 7.
The Commission provides in the first part of Article 5(2)b that the procedures ensuring the environmental risk assessment and other relevant elements should be equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 90/220.
They will be introduced in a future regulation.
According to the proposed amendment, the generic expression of the relevant elements should be replaced with a positive list of elements.
The Commission feels that this is inappropriate taking into account that any exhaustive list would limit unnecessarily the scope of the provision.
Insofar as the second part of the amendment is concerned, I can agree to the addition of a reference to the European Parliament in the future regulation.
Amendment No 10: according to the proposed amendment, an official certificate of origin should accompany each consignment of forest reproductive material during marketing.
The Commission agrees with the aim to ensure that trade flow should be controlled but the introduction of such a certificate would represent an unnecessary burden for trade.
According to the Commission, it would be preferable to introduce appropriate amendments in respect of the existing master certificate.
Finally Amendment No 17: according to the proposed amendment, Member States shall specify the requirements their reproductive material should meet in order to be considered well adapted to particular climatic conditions or exposed upland situations.
The Commission is in favour of justified derogations when they are well defined in respect of their content, for example, for a Community region with specific climatic conditions and in respect of the procedures to be followed.
The Commission feels that the proposed amendment is too broadly based and introduces the possibility for Member States to unilaterally prohibit the marketing of forest reproductive material.
Those are my comments, and I would like to thank you for your attention and thank once again the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
Thank you, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
COM in processed fruit and vegetable products
The next item is the report (A5-0068/1999) by Mrs Ayuso González, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products [COM(1999) 376 - C5-0140/1999 - 1999/0161(CNS)].
.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 provides for the payment of aid to the tomato processing industry with a view to compensating it for the difference between the raw material price on the Community market and that on the world market.
This aid is granted for a global EU quota of nearly 7 million tonnes, distributed at five-yearly intervals by product group of peeled tomatoes, tomato concentrate and other products.
It is also distributed at yearly intervals, by Member State, on the basis of the average minimum price over the three marketing years preceding the year of distribution.
Under this Regulation, quotas were allocated for the marketing years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. These were slightly modified in 1997 in terms of the distribution between the various product groups.
Subsequently, for the next marketing year, the distribution was carried out on the basis of the quantities in compliance with the minimum price over the previous three marketing years, as specified by Article 6.4 of this Regulation.
More than just amending the Regulation, the proposal adopts a Council of Ministers' agreement. This is actually a derogation from the Regulation as Portugal did not produce the quota which it was allocated for the marketing year 1997-1998, apparently due to bad weather.
It is proposed that, for calculation purposes, Portugal is allocated a supplementary amount of 83,468 tonnes for 1999-2000 and, for 2001-2002, the difference between the quota calculated on the basis of the amount actually processed in 1997-1998 and the quota resulting if that figure is replaced by 884,592 tonnes.
This will have no financial repercussions for the other Member States as the Commission has made provision for an ad hoc budget to finance this supplementary amount for Portugal.
However, this Council of Ministers' agreement has caused some concern among producers in the other Member States, particularly Spain, Italy and Greece, which are very competitive in tomato processing and production.
As the President is aware, there have even been demonstrations at the Ministry of Agriculture in Spain by those who feel that Portugal is being accorded an advantage.
A fairer, clearer and more transparent method of contracts and allocations would be the threshold system, rather than the quota system. To a certain extent this would satisfy the producers of those countries which are more competitive.
However, neither the Agriculture Committee nor this House intend to deny Portugal this supplementary amount to enable it to adapt and become increasingly competitive in its tomato production.
Yet this would be a good opportunity to move from the quota system to the system of thresholds for individual Member States. This is the line taken by the amendments which I have tabled on this proposal to amend the Regulation.
The first two amendments are to the recitals and state that the aid for tomato processing is important and that the quota is insufficient. The third amendment states that the Commission will submit, before the start of the next marketing year, a proposal for moving from quotas to thresholds.
I hope the Commission accepts this.
Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report.
I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset.
European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival.
Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact.
This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas.
One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops.
One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique.
Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations.
It also gives us close ties with our homeland.
Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future.
Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods.
It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world.
Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved.
So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive.
I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions.
Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach.
One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.
Mr President, Mrs Ayuso has carried out an important piece of parliamentary work with this report. I, too, am in favour of the benefit to be gained through this measure by a fellow Member State as dear to me as Portugal.
This is all positive.
On the other hand, I am against and in fact I condemn the way in which the Council has proceeded.
It is reprehensible that the Council of Ministers should have decided on these disgraceful advantages, aimed at softening the blow of Agenda 2000.
I am not surprised that the Council is absent. It dare not show its face for it is ashamed by this grand finale, this final distribution of shameful perks, or should we say this muddle to end all muddles?
For this is the way in which the Council of Ministers has proceeded with regard to the how, when and why of this measure.
We said as much on 14 June when we told President Aznar that he was failing to defend the interests of Spain and that he was damaging Spain' s representation with this attitude.
This is still true.
As far as this House is concerned, these are facts confirmed by the vote in Council and we are left to point out that this measure has caused great concern among producers in the other Member States. We must also stress that this exceptional measure is not provided for in the Regulation and that other Member States have also suffered bad weather at times but they have not had the advantage which Portugal is now enjoying.
This advantage amounts to an increase in the Portuguese concentrate quota of 83,468 tonnes for the marketing year 1999-2000, plus other benefits for the marketing year 2000-2001, including retroactive quota increases, for example those of 1997 and 1998, of 83,468 tonnes as supplementary amounts.
An ad hoc budget is authorised for all this.
For the year 2000 this will amount to over ESP 500 million - ESP 532 million to be exact - which is equivalent to EUR 3.2 million.
So, congratulations to Portugal and shame on the Council.
The rapporteur has been very explicit but has no understanding of why we have a regulation which is a tangle of incomprehensibilities and exceptions.
The Council has worsened it instead of improving it.
Mr President, we support the Commission' s proposal for a temporary increase in the Portuguese processed tomato quota as a means of compensating for the low levels of production in the year 1997-1998 due to bad weather.
It should also be noted that this additional sum does not even compensate for the whole potential production in normal weather conditions; it merely mitigates the loss that has been mentioned, which was incurred when the Member States distributed the quotas.
Concerning the proposals put forward in the report, we also feel that there needs to be reform, given that the current situation has harmful effects - as experience has already shown - but we must bear in mind that any reform will still have to take the results of the current year into account and the potential levels of production in Portugal under normal weather conditions.
We therefore think that it is more sensible to increase and improve the current system for calculating quotas with increases in line with the total amounts of production aid and not to move towards a system of guarantee thresholds that could penalise all farmers and not just those who exceed their quotas.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent report.
She was willing to make proposals in the second part and she also formulated suggestions for future policy.
We are discussing production aid for processed tomato products.
This aid is based on processing quotas which correspond to a specific quantity of fresh tomatoes.
The regulation makes provision for quotas to be distributed between Member States every year on the basis of production in previous years.
The weather in Portugal was particularly bad during the 1997/98 marketing year.
This resulted in a net drop in tomato production, which in turn led to a reduction of 83,468 tonnes in the Portuguese tomato concentrate quota when the quotas were distributed for the 1999/2000 marketing year and a concomitant increase in the quotas of three other Member States.
A similar situation will arise when the quotas are distributed for the 2000/01 marketing year.
The purpose of the present draft regulation is to solve this problem; in other words, it increases the Portuguese tomato concentrate quota by 83,468 tonnes for the 1999/2000 marketing year and includes special provisions for setting quotas for the forthcoming 2000/01 marketing year.
What we have is a one-off change to the quota distribution system which is limited in time.
Its purpose is to solve a specific problem which has arisen in one Member State.
This amendment notwithstanding, the Commission intends to conduct a comprehensive review of this regulation.
The Commission will forward the results of this review to the Council during the year 2000.
Any amendments needed to the regulation and subsequent amendments to the regulation could then be applied with effect from the 2001/02 marketing year.
The Commission will look into the recommendations in the three proposed amendments in detail as part of this comprehensive review.
The purpose of the amendments tabled is mainly to replace quotas with a guarantee threshold, to be divided between the Member States, and to increase these quantities.
Until such time as the results are available from this comprehensive review, which will also take account of budgetary constraints, the Commission cannot accept these proposed amendments.
I say this because these proposed amendments go far beyond the very limited specific problem on which a decision is needed today, but I would like to stress that the Commission acknowledges that the proposed amendments are most constructive.
Thank you, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
(The sitting was closed at 10.50 p.m.)
Adoption of the Minutes of the previous sitting
The Minutes of yesterday' s sitting have been distributed.
Are there any comments?
Mr President, I would like to express my extreme disappointment at the fact that the President of the Court of Auditors did not give his report yesterday.
He should have given his report.
He should have cancelled any other engagements he had.
He should have prioritised giving that report to Parliament.
We only ask him to do that once a year, and any other engagement should have been secondary to this very important opportunity to let us know exactly how he feels about the European institutions.
I am very disappointed, and I would ask you to write to the President of the Court of Auditors to express the disappointment of the House.
Thank you very much for your comments, Mrs Morgan.
I shall do so.
I must also say that I have noted your comments and that the Conference of Presidents will also be taking note of this matter.
Mr President, I have a point to make on the same subject.
Time was obviously in short supply, yet the agenda went out on time and we knew how things were to proceed.
I deeply regret that this happened and that the impression has now been given that Parliament was not prepared to accept the report.
I would urge that we take up contact with the Court and arrange things in such a way that there is enough time for the Court' s report at the next part-session in Strasbourg. However, we also need to ensure that the President can attend and present his report.
It is not acceptable for us to be forever postponing this.
I would not wish there to be a major interinstitutional fall-out over this.
It is quite usual for us to receive this report at the end of the year, normally in November.
This could have been done in this part-session.
It is a matter of deep regret to me that it could not be so.
Thank you very much, Mrs Theato.
Your comments are relevant and fair and I think that in the next part-session, in Strasbourg, things will be done and organised in accordance with your protest, or rather, your comments.
Mr President, when a Parliament, in a most irresponsible way, closes the door to political opinions, as happened yesterday among us, it is opening wide the door to armed struggle.
We, Euskal Herritarrok, believe that political conflicts have to be settled by political means, but what we have seen in this House was in fact support for violence.
This Parliament undoubtedly backed the Northern Ireland peace process, and I also wholeheartedly congratulate the Irish people and everybody inside the United Kingdom for their success.
The 1993 Downing Street Declaration, recognising the right to self determination of the Irish people, shows us better than anything else that only through political negotiation can a real and lasting solution be found anywhere.
Could we expect a similar analysis from the European Union to the on-going political conflict existing in the Basque country? Could your European Parliament, Mr President, highlight the example of John Major and David Trimble to show Mr Jospin and Mr Aznar the path they have to embark on immediately?
Mr President, I asked for the floor yesterday but was not allowed to speak by the President at the time.
I simply wanted to say, firstly, that the Spanish Constitution establishes a model of self-government which is infinitely more generous than that achieved by Northern Ireland.
Secondly, this self-government has mainly been exercised by nationalist forces and, at the moment, is exclusively so.
Unlike Northern Ireland, the ministerial posts are not shared between nationalists and non-nationalists.
There are political forces - we have just seen them here - which disagree with the constitutional model given to us by the Spanish.
However, our Constitution allows this disagreement to be voiced by peaceful and democratic means. The parties aiming to destroy constitutional order enter the elections under the flag of independence.
What has to be decided at this point is whether or not it is legal to eliminate those who disagree.
Mr President, I would like to end by saying that, for 40 years, the children of my generation listened wearily to a rhetoric which asserted that ballot-boxes were better off destroyed and that words should be replaced by fists and guns.
The children who left Spain with clean hands will not return to hear this rhetoric again.
Mr García-Margallo, as you know, and however important what you have said may be, this debate is clearly not on the Agenda, and I must keep to the Agenda.
(The Minutes were approved)
Introduction of the Euro
The next item is the report (A5-0076/1999) by Mrs Torres Marques, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the report from the Commission to the Council: Duration of the transitional period related to the introduction of the euro (COM(99) 174 - C5­0108/1999).
Mr President, I have here an illustration on the subject of my report that I would like to be distributed to all those present.
I would be grateful if you would instruct that this be done.
I would like to begin my intervention by thanking Commissioner Pedro Solbes Mira for being here today in the Chamber.
I was told that the Commissioner had prior engagements, a meeting with the Central Banks, but that when he was told this debate was to take place at the same time, he chose to be here in Parliament today.
I would like to acknowledge his choice and to thank him.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the scope of this report is the duration of the transitional period of the euro.
On my proposal, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs agreed to broaden its scope as the subject that had been proposed had, in the meantime, been superseded by various events, one of which was the European Parliament' s own electoral process.
Now, we have other real problems.
The more hearings I have attended and the more reports I have read on these matters, the more convinced I am that the general tendency is, on the one hand, towards a drastic curtailing of the transitional period for the dual circulation of national currency units and euros and, on the other, towards having a frontloading period which it is anticipated will start from 1 December 2001.
The more we look into this problem and the more we talk to those directly involved - consumers and retailers - the more we see that the predominant idea is that the longer the period of dual circulation, the more complicated things will be.
The idea that 'extending the transitional period will make things easier' is finding fewer and fewer supporters.
The illustration that I asked to be distributed gives a better explanation than many arguments can of the difficulties that we may have to face.
Accepting as we do that the transitional period should last until 1 January 2002, it is now important to raise the other problems, the proper resolution of which is of great importance to the credibility of the euro that we all wish to see.
Therefore, in this report, Mr President, Commissioner, only maximum periods are referred to and preference is given to periods which are as short as possible so that all scenarios might be viable, even the legal 'big bang' if, by 2002, this is accepted as the best solution.
Our main proposals are:
firstly, a period of dual circulation of national currency units and euros which is as short as possible;
secondly, a period of advance feeding or "frontloading" to banks, retailers, public administrations and consumers from 1 December 2001;
thirdly, to set prices in euros with their equivalent in the national currency, preferably by 1 January 2001;
fourthly, information campaigns of increasing intensity until 2002, particularly for the most vulnerable groups, through systematic action together with the education system, NGOs and the media in general; particularly prime time television, television news broadcasts and sports programmes with high viewing figures;
fifthly, the increased use of electronic money, credit and debit cards and the creation of an electronic card or purse which can be used throughout the euro zone as soon as is technically possible and that its use is widespread enough for the cost to be minimal;
sixthly, the adaptation of vending machines for the use of charge cards until 2002 which will enable them, as far as possible, to work with coins and notes;
seventhly, the creation, to be postponed until 2002 at the latest, of an integrated payment system which will enable us to transform the euro zone into a market with the same rules as domestic markets.
Mr President, each one of the issues addressed in this report requires more detailed and deeper examination, as their application needs to be completely secure, clear and fully accepted by our citizens.
We therefore hope that the Commission will introduce the measures that it feels must be adopted in this area.
On account of its implications for the lives of our citizens, this issue must be closely supported by the European Parliament, the direct representative of the electors.
I hope that the Commission, the Council and the European Central Bank only take decisions that are fundamental to this issue, having consulted us first.
Mr President, the third phase of Economic and Monetary Union entered into effect on 1 January of this year, as detailed in the Madrid scenario.
Also, in accordance with this scenario, the Council, backed by this House, has decided that euro coins and banknotes will be circulated as legal tender as from 1 January 2002.
One of Madrid' s key contributions is that it drafted a clear schedule early on, which was preceded by extensive deliberation.
My group supports the Commission in its viewpoint that the so-called transitional period should ideally be maintained, despite the fact that its lapsing coincides with the frantic Christmas shopping period.
Preparations are now too far advanced to be able to successfully implement any changes.
On 1 January 2002, the euro will become legal tender within the euro zone.
National currency units will remain in circulation for a maximum of six months, but national legislators may decide to shorten this period within their territories.
Many will not be fully aware of the advent of the euro and monetary union until they have to make the changeover in their own purses.
Whether or not the general public will accept all the work involved in Economic and Monetary Union will be determined by the way in which the actual changeover around 2002 will pan out.
All predictable and avoidable complications and hitches must therefore be ironed out beforehand.
In my group, many fear the confusion, lack of security, feelings of uncertainty and waste of time brought on by dual currency circulation.
The 'big bang' scenario remains attractive to us, but not all Member States share this opinion, hence our appeal to at least keep periods of dual currency circulation to a minimum.
At any rate, a smooth transition accompanied by a short period of dual currency circulation or not, as the case may be, is impossible without frontloading.
To our great relief, the European Central Bank has abandoned its previous stance against frontloading.
Frontloading is a must in order to make the practical introduction of the euro a success.
In the resolution, we recommend frontloading subject to cautious conditions.
I would also like to comment on two other aspects.
Firstly, we share the rapporteur' s vision that in the case of dual circulation, change in the retail trade should be given in euros.
This will, in fact, help shorten the period of dual currency circulation within Member States.
Secondly, we are convinced that dual price display is a good thing.
Alongside euros, we definitely want to see pricing in national currency for a period after 2002.
This is mainly beneficial to the consumer but the retail trade too realises that it stands to benefit from this.
However, to talk about imposing statutory obligations concerning these two aspects now does not seem appropriate to us, certainly not at this early stage.
You will have realised that, according to the PPE Group, Mrs Torres Marques has done a sterling job and we fully endorse her report.
We will only suggest a few refinements when the amendments are discussed at the vote.
We hope that the Member States and also the European institutions will continue to bear in mind that we are also to be consulted at future stages, so that the introduction of euro coins and banknotes in 2002 will be a huge success.
Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Helena Torres Marques on her excellent report.
Mr President, the euro is already the second most important currency in the world.
The actual introduction of the euro from 2002 will dramatically increase the demand for euros.
Although the euro has depreciated over the last few months in relation to the dollar, this is not only due to the current difference in the dynamism and the performance of the American and European economies.
The fact that, for the moment, the euro is only a representative currency and will not become a paper currency until 2002, also explains the certain lack of interest among the European and international public in this new currency that you cannot yet feel or touch.
Nevertheless, the financial markets in general have welcomed the euro.
Since it was introduced at the beginning of this year, the volume of private bonds issued in euros has increased by over 50%.
For the first seven months of this year on the international capital markets, issues in euros represented 27% of international issues.
Meanwhile, issues in dollars over the same seven month period fell from 57% to 50%, which shows that there is already a very strong real demand by the markets.
There is another problem, to which I should like to draw the attention of this House, and that is the huge money supply of Deutschmarks, French francs and other European currencies circulating outside the frontiers of Europe.
According to a report by the German Bundesbank, over one hundred billion Deutschmarks are used as a daily reserve currency by the citizens of Eastern Europe.
There are also billions of French francs circulating in French-speaking Africa and all this money must be changed into euros.
For the moment, the people holding these banknotes are trying to move towards the dollar, which also perhaps explains, to a certain extent, the fluctuation to the detriment of the euro.
I should like to ask the Commission whether it should not take the initiative in drawing the attention of the Central European Bank and the national central banks to this problem, that is to say, the necessary exchange of all the European currencies that will disappear in 2002 with the actual introduction of the euro.
I believe that there is a real problem here which has not been adequately discussed and in respect of which the Commission would be well advised to take an initiative in order to organise this exchange with dignity.
Mr President, Commissioner, we remain convinced that the euro is a good thing.
The euro is not a goal in itself, but a means to serve the European citizen, a strong economy, employment and the international status of the European Union.
It is a means to promote more stability, more transparency, more clarity, more convenience of payment, more saving options and better investment opportunities.
I will not repeat what the honourable rapporteur has already stated as to how we need to tackle the changeover of national currency units to euros in practical terms, but I would like to make two observations regarding her report.
Firstly, the euro probably has only one drawback, namely the inevitable transitional period; that is to say, all the adjustments required to fully integrate the national currency units into the new tender.
If we wish to limit the damage, then it is indeed important to keep the period of dual currency circulation to a minimum.
If it is based on sound framework measures, there is no need for initial hesitation before taking the final and definitive step towards the euro.
I therefore back the technical measures proposed by the rapporteur. I would congratulate her on the level of clarity displayed.
Secondly, we are responsible for keeping the attention given to, and interest in, the euro alive.
The present situation is not conducive in this respect.
The introduction of the euro on 1 January this year enjoyed a great deal of attention, even a certain euphoria, but it all went quiet after that for the single currency.
The euro is still too far removed from the European citizen.
It is still a while before 2002, when the euro will be introduced as actual currency.
This is too long according to public opinion.
The appetite has gone.
Moreover, this interim phase creates far too many insecurities.
In short, we need to be able to maintain our belief in and enthusiasm for the euro during the warming-up stage as well, although ensuring at the same time that people do not lose interest before the euro actually takes off.
After all, the euro needs to remain a success and we need to make every effort to achieve this.
Mr President, the euro has aroused great expectations but it has also created many problems, for example, for businesses in the north of Italy that are being burdened with extremely high taxes and whose competitiveness can no longer be ensured by means of changes in the exchange rate.
Moreover, investors who have decided to convert their money into dollars or pounds sterling have undoubtedly reaped greater rewards up till now than those who invested in the euro.
One final point: today the currencies of the various countries could be viewed as subcurrencies of the euro, but the banks do not see it this way.
Today, even on small amounts there is much more commission when buying and selling lira, Belgian francs or French francs than when buying dollars or pounds sterling.
I think that we should take action on this.
Mr President, the closer we get to the introduction of the euro, the more reasonable the viewpoints and wishes of the European Parliament become with regard to the introduction of the euro in circulation.
Meanwhile, virtually everyone in this House shares the view that 1 January 2002 is really the earliest date and that government offices, banks and mint establishments have to pull out all the stops in order to meet this deadline
Recital K, which contains a complaint to the effect that the electronic euro is lacking in immediate practical benefits, is still a leftover of the unrealistic expectations which were - and apparently still are - prevalent among a majority of MEPs.
The fact that the euro propaganda campaign is not delivering the goods is entirely down to a lack of sense of reality which is playing tricks here.
I strongly object to the proposal to provide the European citizen with euro coins and banknotes before 1 January 2002.
This contravenes the Treaty and also plays into the hands of counterfeiters. They too will then be provided with the material to be copied sooner and will be able to better exploit the confusion easily created among the citizens.
We would much prefer it if the European Central Bank and the European Commission, in tandem with the commercial banks, were to ensure that the general public receives sound, detailed information on the design and security features of the euro coins and banknotes, starting no later than 1 November 2001.
Mr President, except for paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 12 and 16, we can support the motion for a resolution.
Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation.
A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened.
The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this.
The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash.
I would like to pick out one aspect alone.
It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined.
For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular.
I would therefore ask that we organise these elements - acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading - so as to increase citizens' confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign.
If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.
Mr President, the 1995 changeover plan has proved to be worthwhile.
The rapporteur rightly emphasises the careful preparations leading up to the introduction of the euro, and we must ensure that the euro does indeed enjoy the confidence of the citizens and not just that of the markets, where it is now established.
The first year of the euro' s introduction and life with monetary union is associated, then, with a lack of awareness of the euro on the part of the citizens, that is to say the consumers.
It is not without reason that as yet, only 1% of transfers and 4% of credit card transactions are performed in euros.
This would suggest that we really do need information campaigns.
Not only did we need to have these campaigns in the years before monetary union started, we also need to pursue them now that it is in force, and this is not a task that we should just leave to the European Central Bank.
We, too, in our capacity as European Commission, European Parliament, and governments of the Member States, must launch a new initiative in this respect, so that political discussions on the value of the euro do not cause the citizens to suddenly start thinking that, although they may inhabit a monetary union, this has lent no added value to Europe. Rather, they must be made aware of the fact that they are living in an age of new monetary reform.
This false assumption, which is still very much prevalent because the exchange rate between the euro, the dollar and the yen has, I regret to say, developed rather differently than appeared would be the case on 4 January, must not, however, lead to a situation in which erroneous ideas as to the value of the euro hold sway.
The internal value of the currency is decisive and the fact that we can record values for the euro 11-zone that truly inspire confidence is of historic importance.
It is a good thing that it is becoming clear, and is made transparent time and time again in the monetary dialogue between the European Parliament and the European Central Bank, how important price stability is for this independent, monetary authority; and it is a good thing that the ECB should see that this goal is accomplished in a manner accessible to ordinary citizens.
I believe it would be wrong to break out in a panic now, here in this Chamber, on account of exchange rate trends.
I think the exchange rates are exhausted in any case.
The important thing to do in these circumstances, though, is to support the development of the euro by having more coordination of economic policy within the European Union.
Monetary policy will not be in a position to enhance the credibility of European integration for the benefit of growth, employment and also investment, if the Member States of the European Union do not, coincidentally with the harmonisation and centralisation of monetary policy, join forces more resolutely in giving out signals against tax dumping and social dumping, and in favour of increased employment.
Mr President, the excellent Torres Marques report marks the end of a debate which started 10 months ago.
Fortunately, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament are in agreement about ratifying the timetable for the introduction of the euro agreed at the Madrid European Council of 1995.
This consensus demonstrates that careful management of the various periods is the key to the success of the operation.
Our efforts must be concentrated on ensuring that this transition goes smoothly.
Our role is to protect the interests of the people, particularly those who are disadvantaged.
Respect for the timetable will provide the time needed for the information to reach everyone and may also allow the dual circulation period to be reduced.
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs maintains that this period should not exceed two months.
The ECB, the Commission and the national authorities will therefore have to adopt a series of measures, some of which have already been mentioned. For example, they will have to provide consumers, traders and banks with the necessary quantity of coins and notes before 1 January 2002.
They will have to ensure that dual price display is in general use for 1 January 2001.
They will have to use this process to modernise our payment systems and they will have to adopt the necessary measures to ensure adequate legal protection against fraud.
If the euro is to bring greater freedom to individuals and companies and increased rationality in their decision making, they must previously have become familiar with the new system.
In this respect, the recommendations on communication and information policies contained in the Torres Marques report have a vital role to play. However, we should not imagine that the euro will perfect the single market or that it will allow, for example, easier price comparison or a reduction in transaction costs.
The benefits of the euro must be more than just material for they must help to strengthen the political union.
Mr President, Commissioner, the most important step with regard to the future of the euro is the moment European citizens start handling euros physically.
We will try to facilitate the switch to the new currency in terms of cash by allowing the euro and national currencies to exist side by side for a few months.
Parliament also supports frontloading and would, in this way, like to remove the barriers to the swift introduction of the currency.
It now appears that the European Central Bank is also gradually beginning to endorse this aim.
We cannot, however, underestimate how important it is for the citizens of Europe to be prepared for the change.
When Germany reunited, the West German mark was introduced into the former East Germany immediately with no major catastrophe occurring, such as those the big bang sceptics are currently describing with regard to the introduction of the euro.
In many countries, the euro, with few exceptions, could be adopted within a short period of time.
For example, in my country, Finland, the number of coins and notes in relation to GNP is the smallest in Europe.
In addition, the ever-growing number of credit cards in relation to the population is by far the greatest.
For example, I would support the big bang model for Finland.
The big bang would actually only cause problems for cash dispensing machines.
It will not be possible to change all the machines in one night, so the old currency should continue to be used as legal tender at least for some period of time, in cash dispensers at least.
Our citizens must have the real feeling that the euro is of benefit to them, and not something that is going to make life difficult.
At present, there is a dearth of direct practical benefits, since, for example, developments in the euro zone as far as cross-border purchases and currency exchange services are concerned have not been to the satisfaction of the public.
The introduction of the euro must be made easy for the public and consumers.
Problems for special groups must be minimised.
Everything possible must be done in remote areas to ease the introduction of the euro.
Supplies of the new currency delivered early on would support these aims.
What is essential for the public is not how long dual circulation lasts, but how long the banks will exchange former currencies for euros without charge.
The banks should offer a free currency exchange service for at least six months, even though dual circulation might have ceased.
EMU is not a construction to be ranked with the seven wonders of the world.
Rather, it is in the running for the title of world' s largest folly, for it is designed to give the world' s largest trading block a single currency built upon a foundation which, until the introduction of this currency, it had only been possible to hold in place for a period of five post-war years in Germany.
In every other year, the rate of inflation has been more than 2%.
To make an idol of this rate is not only stupid but also a direct assault upon the many families in which the father or mother is now coming home with a redundancy notice instead of a wage slip.
EMU' s holy cow is worse than the holy cows of India.
The latter do not in the least prevent opportunities from arising to create growth and employment.
The absurdity becomes apparent when Danish economic policy is compared with that pursued in the eleven euro or EMU countries.
Over the last five years, growth in Denmark has been twice as great: 20% instead of 10%, and the rate of unemployment has been halved.
That should be considered good by any ordinary person' s standards but, in EMU, such a policy would be downright illegal; in fact, more than that, unconstitutional, because it was put in place with a Budget deficit of 3.9%. The policy would have incurred a fine of EUR 500-600 million.
Some people say that the policy can be changed when politicians sit together round the table, but that is somewhat non-sensical because the policy may only be altered by amending the treaty itself, the basic law, the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam.
This is where the errors arise from.
The Central Bank may be criticised for raising interest rates instead of reducing unemployment, but it is only doing what the Treaty says it must do.
It is the Treaty which should be altered.
The single currency ought at least to be converted into a common currency allowing countries to have their own rates of exchange for the purposes of pursuing economic policies which benefit employment.
In that way, one economic policy or the other might be pursued. The countries themselves should be allowed to decide which.
Mr President, firstly I must congratulate Mrs Torres Marques on her report and thank everyone who has participated in this debate today.
My presence here reflects the importance which the Commission and I myself, as the Commissioner responsible for economic and monetary affairs, continue to place on the whole process of the introduction of the euro.
As emphasised by several speakers, the introduction of the euro has so far clearly been a great success, despite the debates which we may be having on certain specific points.
It is also clear, again as highlighted throughout this debate, that the moment of truth will be when the coins and notes enter into circulation on 1 January 2002.
I must comment on the practical problems which are bound to arise, as indicated in the report.
If we had to describe what is to happen, we would not use the terms 'big bang' or 'dual circulation' .
The proposed shortening of the periods is actually intended to ensure a rapid introduction of coins and notes and perhaps this is the new description which we should be using.
Yet this rapid introduction cannot occur overnight.
There can be no big bang, but neither are we talking about a long period of dual circulation.
We are therefore concerned with the minimum time needed so that the introduction is rapid. This is positive.
This clearly leads to the second problem of frontloading.
This has been debated, as you well know, by both the European Central Bank and ECOFIN.
The latter has already discussed frontloading with coins but frontloading with notes, outside the financial system, poses legal and practical difficulties.
However, these difficulties, particularly where linked to the type of coin or note currently being supplied by cash dispensers, could be solved.
We are therefore facing some specific problems which have been mentioned.
What will happen in the period at the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002 when many people will be travelling around Europe? How will we solve this problem?
This is clearly a specific point which must be carefully considered and for which an answer must be sought. We cannot ask travellers using their national currency to change this in a place which is not their country of origin as this would cause practical problems of all kinds.
With regard to the problem of dual price display, I agree with the idea that we should set a date from which the dual display of prices is absolutely compulsory. This is the only way to start making any comparison.
However, we are all aware that only in the last months of 2001 will people really start to make comparisons. In my opinion, the price difference will involve such a substantial change that the references to the old prices will quickly disappear.
We will all have to adapt to the new prices.
The report raises one particularly important point on the problem of the communication policy and the people who will find it more difficult to adapt to the new situation.
Some speakers have also referred to the need to continue this communication policy with which I totally agree.
The Commission is currently preparing a new plan of action on the communication policy. This plan will, of course, involve this House.
We believe that this operation must be carried out by all the institutions involved in the process, and particularly the European Parliament, as the institution most directly in contact with the people.
We have already discussed this in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs but I will repeat my offer that I am prepared to start examining how to resolve most effectively the communication problems arising between everyone.
We will have to include in this plan the people who will have more difficulty in gaining an adequate understanding of the new currency. These will be the people who, for one reason or another, will have certain specific problems.
The electronic money issue will not cause any particular difficulties.
However, one interesting point to be stressed is the problem of payment systems, particularly in retail operations.
The payment system for major transactions has worked very well but we all agree that the problem of the excessive charges currently imposed on money-changing is generating ill feeling. This is because we expected a reduction in the costs of money-changing during this period and these expectations have not been borne out.
The priority is to set up compensation systems or payment systems allowing us to reduce these costs.
Initiatives have already been taken in this respect which the Commission supports.
However, we have to achieve a system which prevents these costs from being as high as they are at the moment and we must therefore set up common standards allowing us to deal with any difficulties which may arise.
Thank you for this report.
It is an important element in the whole process of the introduction of the euro and I hope to carry on discussing this issue with you as we have done to date.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 11 a.m.
Fisheries
The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:
A5-0067/1999 by Mrs Fraga Estévez, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (COM(99) 55 - C4-0141/1999 - 1999/0047(CNS)).
A5-0025/1999 by Mr Gallagher, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending for the third time Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (COM(99) 141 - C4-0224/1999 - 1999/0081(CNS)).
Mr President, the current common organisation of the markets has been showing signs of running out of steam. This is due to its inability to meet the new challenges of a highly globalised and competitive market in fishery products, in a European Union very dependent on imports.
This House has, on many occasions, highlighted this problem and called for substantial changes.
We are now finally debating the Committee on Fisheries' report on a proposal for a regulation which does not just reform the COM but establishes a completely new system.
This is not just any old debate but one which affects one of the four pillars of the Community fisheries policy.
It must therefore be as productive and responsible as the debate we had in the Committee on Fisheries because this report, which I ask you to approve, is the result of a hard-won compromise between the political groups and the various sectorial and national interests.
As rapporteur, I believe we should acknowledge that the Commission' s initial proposal significantly improved the current COM.
In particular, it reinforced the fundamental role played by the producers' organisations in the marketing of products. It also granted them increased and improved mechanisms for ensuring correct operation and more responsible fishing and marketing.
However, our committee had to change the text of the proposal on two major aspects.
In both cases this was achieved through the compromises which I have mentioned. The first compromise was reached by including aquaculture products and shellfish gathering for which no marketing aid was provided.
Yet these are both subsectors which, like fishing, must be fully included in a system whose aim is to match supply to demand. They are also developing sectors in which production must be well planned so that crises, such as those which are periodically suffered by salmon producers, can, as far as possible, be avoided from the outset.
The other aspect which we corrected is even more serious, if this is possible.
As I mentioned at the beginning, this type of regulation should be prepared very carefully, particularly when proposing a change from a quota system to a system of indefinite tariff suspension for imports. Yet the Commission acted not just thoughtlessly but even frivolously and irresponsibly.
Please understand that the Committee on Fisheries is not opposed to the system of tariff suspension.
However, we must be certain that this system, which actually involves the voluntary removal of tariff duties, will not threaten Community companies which produce and market the same products.
The Commission' s proposal included several products which are produced in the Community on a large scale. This is proven by the study being prepared at the request of the Council because the Commission' s figures lacked justification.
For example, for one of these products - tuna fillets - this study establishes deficit levels of between 1 500 and 3 000 tonnes.
Without considering any comparative information, the Commission was therefore recklessly prepared to stifle a Community sector which provides thousands of jobs. This would also have blocked its own systems of aid for the development of GSP-Drug and ACP countries just because of an actual import requirement of less than 3 000 tonnes which can be completely covered by the current system of tariff quotas.
Although the compromise reached by our committee on this issue was particularly difficult to achieve, the facts seem to justify this. Following the political agreement achieved in the last Council of Ministers, both tuna fillets and herring now fall outside the tariff suspension system, in addition to another set of corrections affecting other products contained in Annex V.
I therefore feel that the Commission' s proposal was not well prepared. In fact, it was dangerous and we are pleased with the Council' s correction which matches ours in making the compensation for withdrawals more flexible.
With these two major changes incorporated in committee, together with others such as greater precision in labelling and information to consumers, this House is helping to prevent a text which has its good points from being ineffective due to its lack of realism. I therefore ask you all to approve this report.
It only remains for me to thank all the Members who helped to achieve this compromise for their hard work and assistance.
I ask you again to approve this report.
Thanks should also go to Mr Gallagher for his excellent report.
Mr President and Commissioner, in introducing this report on the conservation of fishing resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, I can be confident that the proposals are based on sound scientific advice.
As my European Parliament colleagues will know, the Fisheries Committee has been a strong supporter of technical conservation measures based on technical and scientific data.
This is particularly so where efforts are made to cross-reference scientific data with fisheries observations.
Fishermen spend more time at sea than scientists and the sea is their natural environment, which they observe on a daily basis.
They have a better understanding of fish movements and factors affecting fish stocks than people give them credit for, quite simply because it is essential for their livelihood.
The House will recall the positive opinion on the substance of the measures and resolution of 25 October 1996, the Gallagher report, and its opinion of 26 April 1998 on the implementation of technical measures in the common fisheries policy.
On 30 March 1998, the Council of Ministers adopted Regulation 850/98 for the conservation of fishing resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles.
This regulation replaced 894/97 with the exception of Articles 11, 19 and 20 which related to driftnets and which were dealt with separately.
After the adoption and publication of this regulation, data brought to the attention of the Commission necessitated its incorporation into this regulation.
The regulation of 13 March 1998 is due to come into effect on 1 January next year.
However, it is imperative that the additional data and developments which have come too late be incorporated in this regulation and ensure that it is part of the regulation coming into force on 1 January.
The present proposal for a Council regulation provides for changes to the area and timing of restrictions designed to protect the spawning of the Douglas Bank herring in the Irish Sea.
In view of the current healthy state of herring stocks, the proposal changes allow for a reduction in both the area and the time period of fishing restrictions.
This will increase fishing opportunities while, at the same time, protecting the stocks and ensure that there is no repeat of the collapse of the stocks which we recall in 1970.
I am pleased to note that the scientific, technical and economic committee have supported the proposal, having examined the report of the advisory committee of fisheries management during its November 1999 session, in addition to the specific provisions on the use of Danish seine nets in the plaice box.
This merely corrects an oversight in the original text.
The conditions agreed within the international dolphin conservation programme for the use of purse seines which commonly will apply provisionally within the Community incorporate into this regulation a revision of mesh size for two species of spotted dogfish.
Technical conservation measures will play an important role in the conservation of stocks by protecting juvenile fish and will reduce the threat to further yields.
A clear message must go out from this Parliament, from the Commission and from the Council to the fishing industry that honest endeavours will be respected and those fishermen who abide by technical conservation measures that are devised by accredited European scientists in partnership with fishermen will benefit most.
If amendments are necessary in the light of new developments, no doubt the Commission will come back with further proposals and I am quite certain that the Committee and Parliament will respond expeditiously.
I want to thank my colleagues, the officials in committee and the officials in the Commission for their assistance in drawing up this report and I want to congratulate Mrs Fraga Estévez on the presentation of her very comprehensive report.
But I must say that I am disappointed here today that the Council have already decided and that we are debating a report when a decision has been taken.
I must pose the question: are we ordering our business in a correct fashion?
Commissioner Fischler told us we had no co-responsibility, but that our views would be taken into consideration.
How can our views be taken into consideration when we are debating a report which has already been decided on by Council? I would sincerely hope the Council and the Commission have taken note of our views.
They were obviously monitoring the progress of this report through the committee, and I am pleased that they have rejected a proposal to allow unlimited quantities of herring into the Union, quantities of fresh, chilled and frozen herring at preferable rates of duty.
Now it has been restricted from 2001 to 20 000 tonnes. It is still too much in view of the fact that the prices of herring in the Community at the moment are at an all-time low.
This is because of the overloading of the EU market with low-price fish and frozen herring from Norway and the setting up by German companies of low-cost production units in Poland for processing duty-free Norwegian fish for export to Germany.
We must remember, we have a duty and a responsibility to the Community fishermen and we must ensure that their rights are protected.
Madam President, Mr Gallagher, I am only too pleased to second what you have just had to say about the modus operandi.
Something has to change there.
But first I have something to tell you on a more cheery note.
Yesterday, following the trialogue between the Council, the Commission and Parliament, I was reassured in the Committee on Budgets that the financing for the important fisheries agreement with Morocco was secured at second reading.
We have taken a significant step forward and a sound foundation has been laid for the forthcoming negotiations.
It was possible to discern the beginnings of a change of direction in the debate in the Committee on Fisheries on the report by Carmen Fraga, and this change will take hold in the new year.
The joint struggle has forged bonds between us within the Committee, both on general and more specific issues.
It was, and continues to be, about supplying the European market with fish and about targeted production for export so as to preserve direct and indirect jobs at sea and on land.
We are a Community based on solidarity and it should stay that way.
Now there is a new Parliament and a new Commission with many new personalities and new emphases.
The market situation in general, not just in relation to the WTO negotiations, and the different understanding new personalities have of traditional practices, also bring about changes in the issues dealt with in committee, both in respect of content and the weight they are given.
In future, therefore, we must also examine other viewpoints more closely.
The rapporteur has presented a very well thought-out report. It received a majority vote.
However, the outcome failed to satisfy several Members, which means that discussions in committee will now become livelier. The Committee on Budgets has long been asking for this.
At the same time, no one wants to give up the solidarity we have with an endangered but important economic and policy arm of the EU.
Solidarity cannot, by definition, be called for from one side alone, though.
The unanswered questions on the GMO report are as follows: how many subsidies and customs tariffs does the fisherman need and to what extent can the industry sustain a liberalised, global trading zone? To what extent is free competition compatible with fair competition?
Grants give way to helping people to help themselves. But the net must not be closed in so tightly that those concerned no longer have to make any effort at all to maintain their independent position on the market of supply and demand.
Where do we draw the line between private enterprise and planned economy measures? Questions upon questions.
What is more, the EU budget is tight.
Why is it necessary for financial support to be extended to aquaculture as well? It is a new market segment in the breeding sector which, in view of efficient management, is able to guarantee greater stability of planning and supply than the fishing industry is capable of.
Ought it not to be the fishing industry and its market prospects that attract an increased level of financial support? It is understandable that the Member States do not say no to receiving EU subsidies for this sector.
As I see it, the upshot is as follows: the Commission's proposal was amended to a considerable extent.
Votes against and abstentions must therefore be respected for the reasons cited earlier.
The discussion on the common organisation of the markets does not end there.
Madam President, I too congratulate Mr Gallagher on his excellent work.
We have spent two years extensively discussing the Community fisheries market. It is now finally the turn of the whole House to adopt a stance through this report which was approved by a large majority in the Committee on Fisheries.
Our market has a deficit of fishery products.
Some 60% of the fishery products consumed in Europe are imported.
The Community fisheries sector is extraordinarily active and competitive and plays an important role in maintaining economic and social cohesion in Europe.
Our duty is therefore to ensure and guarantee its future.
The European market is not a closed market.
It is open in that products from GSP countries enter free of tariffs or at low tariffs.
We make strict demands on our fishermen in terms of gear, conservation and handling of catches which are not compulsory for foreign fleets.
For us as Socialists, the Community preference is therefore our commitment to the Community fisheries sector, to our people, fishermen, fishing industry workers and shipowners who hope to be able to continue their activities and keep their jobs.
We should not therefore, as proposed by the Commission, replace the current and flexible tariff quota system with the total or partial suspension of tariff duties.
We oppose this removal of tariffs because we believe that we do not need to protect, as Mrs Langenhagen said, but at least defend a competitive and modern sector which is still not prepared for total liberalisation. The same is true of many other sectors.
Many questions continue to concern us. These include the cut in financing which excludes important growth sectors such as aquaculture, the lack of definition of the information to be received by the consumer, as specifically mentioned by Mrs Fraga Estévez, with regard to the distribution of areas proposed by the Commission, and the lack of other relevant data such as minimum sizes.
As Socialists, our priorities include consumer protection. The defence of quality is one way of protecting these rights.
We therefore want to encourage measures which emphasise quality fishery products and, at the same time, we ask for sustainable management of resources to ensure the future of fishing.
Fishing must be allowed, but in accordance with the requirements of the market and the respectful management of the product.
To sum up, we Socialists want to defend European producers, consumers and importers and we believe that with the report approved by the Committee on Fisheries, with the excellent work carried out by Mrs Fraga Estévez - who I congratulate - and with the agreement reached by the Council of Ministers, we can, in the main, be satisfied.
Mr President, our group very much welcomes the proposal on the common organisation of the market in fisheries, because it will improve information to consumers.
It will strengthen producer organisations giving them incentives to better resource management and it will introduce greater stability into the supply of fish for processing.
We also consider that there are many respects in which the report introduces major improvements to the original proposal, and we congratulate Mrs Fraga accordingly.
There are, however, some areas in which we continue to have doubts.
First, there are various articles, notably 11(2), where we believe that the original Commission proposals provide greater security against over-fishing than do the amendments in the report.
Second, we take the view that guide prices should be fixed by reference to national ports rather than to representative ports simply because the latter idea is too lacking in specification.
Third, a number of us consider that the additional costs involved do not warrant extension of some of the measures to aquaculture, though I would add this is not my own view.
Aquaculture is of such major importance to Scotland where many fragile local economies depend upon it.
Finally, we have very mixed feelings about Article 28 and the amendment to it.
On the one hand, we fear that the amendment might delay implementation, and we also have certain concerns about its precise content.
On the other hand, we accept that there should be a rational basis for tariff suspension rather than it resulting simply from a shopping list provided by Member States.
We look to the Commission to provide such a rational basis.
All in all, we believe that the measures being undertaken fit well with the projected regionalisation of the common fisheries policy to which we are firmly committed, and we hope that proposals to this end will be put before Parliament soon.
Madam President, I am delighted to be making my maiden speech today in this House, as I am a new Member of Parliament, and I am happy to do so with regard to fisheries and the excellent report by Mrs Fraga Estévez, because I am the mayor of Mèze, in the French department of Hérault, in the south of France, which is a small town, one of the main Mediterranean coastal fishing ports, near Sète, which is the principal fishing port.
I should tell you that since yesterday and again today, all the fishing ports along the Mediterranean coast have been on strike because the fishermen are protesting against the price of diesel oil and the collapse in the prices of bluefish, tuna, sardines and also eels that are not sold any more.
A real market problem exists and it is the whole of this profession that is being ruined.
And they are protesting against the European directives that they find too restrictive.
In the context of discussions like these, we need to show our support for the fishing trade.
I will raise three points with regard to Mrs Fraga Estévez' s excellent report: firstly, traceability.
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is in favour of detailed labelling on the products, from first sale to the last, so that people know where the product has been caught, how and also whether it is a product of fishing or aquaculture.
We wish to go even further than the proposals made by the Commission.
Secondly, on the questions relating to withdrawal and destruction, a reference price, a guide price, is fixed and subsidies are granted when the fishery products are not sold.
Subsidies are also granted to conserve and store products.
Our group is in favour of this when it is a matter of conserving products and not wasting them, but if it is a matter of increasing the amount of fishing undertaken only to then destroy the fish, we are not in favour.
We believe that the producers' organisations should be made aware so that the fisheries plan is well established throughout the year and so that intensive fishing is not favoured only to subsequently destroy the fish.
It is very important and perhaps requires an increase in the reference price and, in the end, a whole procedure, but we should like the resource to be well managed.
Finally, I will conclude by saying that as far as the customs duties are concerned, we are not in favour of these duties being systematically abolished.
An impact study should be undertaken, as Mrs Fraga Estévez proposes, and objective criteria should be established before deciding which customs duties will be abolished.
Our group supports Mrs Fraga Estévez' s report and Mr Gallagher' s report.
Madam President, the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products is one of the most important elements of the common fisheries policy.
I hope, even with the commitments made by the Council, that the latter takes due regard of the results of the debate and the Fraga Estévez report in particular.
With regard to the contents of the report, I must congratulate Mrs Fraga Estévez.
As usual, she has worked very hard and I particularly want to acknowledge the effort made to achieve compromises.
As is to be expected, compromises do not satisfy everyone and this case is no exception.
I am unhappy with one aspect of the report in that it proposes an extension of the limits set by the Commission for fishery withdrawals.
Faced with increasingly scarce fish stocks, it seems absurd to fish to destruction and immoral to waste quality protein.
This reflects one of the shortcomings of the Commission' s proposal which should have supplemented the COM framework with a mechanism to maintain the income of fishery workers. This would allow the effect of price falls to be limited and would therefore make recourse to the withdrawal and destruction of fishery products unnecessary.
The Commission' s proposal lacks maturity and is dominated by inertia.
There is inertia towards budget restrictions and in the regulation of foreign trade.
This opportunity could have been used to establish a clear and transparent system of foreign trade regulation.
For these reasons, I feel that the Fraga Estévez report is much more useful and my group therefore totally supports not only its efforts but, despite the reticence indicated in my speech, the compromise as a whole.
Finally, we will also support the report by Mr Gallagher who I also congratulate.
Madam President, the new proposal for a regulation on the common organisation of the markets in the fisheries and aquaculture sector puts forward new and interesting aspects that need to be thoroughly considered, which I cannot, unfortunately, discuss in this forum.
Being the representative of the largest island in the Mediterranean - Sicily - and head of the province of Catania, where large numbers of people work in the fishing industry, I would have been in a good position to talk about day-to-day experiences.
Today though, I would like to make some constructive criticisms, which I hope can contribute to improving the proposal for a regulation in question.
As far as consumer information is concerned, I fully agree with the Commission when it proposes compulsory labelling indicating the designation of the species, the production method as well as the catch area.
Nevertheless, with the aim of making consumers more responsible and making the market more transparent, other details should be included, for example, the minimum legal size, which would allow fishery resources to be respected.
As far as producers' organisations are concerned, it is true that we need to make them more responsible, as regards both the organisation of the market and the efficient management of resources; however, it would be appropriate - and in this respect I stress the relevance of Amendment No 67, tabled by my political group - for the Member States to be able to grant additional aid to producers' organisations that develop measures which valorise the species caught and measures to adapt supply to demand through structural actions of the FIFG.
In view of the fact that - and it has been reaffirmed here this morning - according to data provided by the Commission, 60% of fishery products consumed in the European Union are imported, we should support aquaculture, which constitutes a major economic opportunity for maritime communities, in a substantial and comprehensive manner.
Often, people do not enter this sector due to a lack of knowledge.
Finally, I would like to conclude by thanking Mrs Fraga Estévez for upholding the amendments tabled by the UEN Group in the Committee on Fisheries.
Madam President, Commissioner, I firstly want to congratulate both rapporteurs of the Committee on Fisheries for their reports which are before us today.
The Gallagher report concerns a technical amendment to the ever sensitive protection of juveniles which we always support in our committee.
I must highlight the consideration and receptiveness of our rapporteur with regard to the request to the Commission for further information. The delay in this vote on his report was caused by the Commission not having dealt with his request for the most recent scientific reports to assess the coverage of the geographical area delimited in the Douglas Bank Box and the redefinition of the conditions and their scope.
As Mrs Fraga Estévez had also asked for this information, I hope that this has allowed us to completely fulfil the role, reserved specifically for our Committee on Fisheries, of minutely scrutinising the activity of the European Commission and the application of the corresponding scientific reports by the Community institutions.
With regard to the Fraga Estévez report, this concerns a fundamental issue and a pillar of the common fisheries policy, namely the common organisation of the markets. As this clearly covers all fishing activity, this is why this magnificent report has taken some time in its progress through this House and its final adoption in our committee on the twenty-second of last month.
The final result is an excellent report. Many of its important sections were the subject of a consensus due to compromise amendments made by the rapporteur which substantially alter key aspects of the Commission' s proposal.
The removal of Article 5, which was the Commission' s attempt to create new tariff suspensions on products as sensitive as tuna fillets, the request to create reference laboratories, the inclusion of aquaculture, the improvement of the regulation of consumer information on the labels of fishery products, the percentages of the compensatory allowances for tuna and the increased flexibility of withdrawals are, to mention just a few examples, very important improvements introduced in this report. I must therefore congratulate the rapporteur once again.
We must also congratulate ourselves on the development and achievement of this report which lends prestige to the role of the Committee on Fisheries as well as this House.
Madam President, it is as the Commission says in its explanatory statement.
This proposal on the common organisation of the markets in fisheries and aquaculture products is of central importance for the common fisheries policy in the European Union.
If we take a look at the general aims in the explanatory statement of the proposal, then we will see that we can give these our full and unequivocal support.
Responsible stock management, improving the competitiveness of the sector, liberalisation of the market etc.
I am completely in favour of all these statements.
What does give cause for concern though is the question as to which methods the Commission, and in particular the rapporteur, intend to employ in their efforts to maintain these principles.
I would like to comment just on three points.
Firstly, I consider that, in future, one issue to be addressed will be that of establishing extensive, direct grants for the fisheries sector, as previous regulations failed to do.
Now, of course, no one has anything against grants.
But still the question must be asked as to whether this approach will, in the long term, achieve the goal of boosting the competitiveness of the sector.
Even when a deadline is proposed, this always has certain consequences and so we should not rule out maintaining this state of affairs indefinitely.
In my view, we could look to the structural funds policy for a more suitable option.
Secondly, I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts being made to adapt the regime governing trade with third countries.
The only question in this respect is whether they actually go far enough.
After all, the fact of the matter is that we in the EU are highly dependent on imports.
To a certain extent, the fish processing industry is dependent on tariff reduction and suspension arrangements for its survival.
Thirdly, I am unable to support the rapporteur in her desire to include aquaculture products in the intervention regime.
Notwithstanding all the efforts made on the part of the rapporteur, who has, as always, produced a thorough piece of work in order to improve the Commission' s proposal - and I have a great deal of respect for that - I am only able to lend my support to some of her conclusions.
Madam President, as the rapporteur, Carmen Fraga Estévez, has said, the introduction of the proposal for a new Council regulation establishing the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products is taking place at a time when the European Union countries together constitute one of the largest markets for fishery products in the world.
As there is a shortfall in our internal supply, we import 60% of the products we consume.
In this context, the regulation of the supply and demand for fishery products must respond to a dual consideration: it must meet consumers' needs and safeguard the development of the fisheries sector itself.
As we all know, the fisheries sector, which is concentrated in certain countries such as mine, is one of the major contributors to economic activity.
The report by Mrs Fraga Estévez responds adequately to this dual consideration and deserves the support of this House.
In any event, it will certainly have ours.
The regulation would doubtless improve if her thoughts and criticisms concerning the limited budget allocated to the regulation and the exclusion from the common organisation of the markets of almost all of our aquaculture, amongst other things, were taken into account. It will also improve if her partial criticism of the standards relating to consumer information and to its defence of tariff suspensions when there is Community production, is heeded.
We also ask for your support for the report by Mr Pat Gallagher.
Madam President, the Commission' s proposal for a new COM for fishery and aquaculture products does not meet the needs and specific requirements of the sector in the various Member States. Nor does it take account of the potential that still exists, which is all the more incomprehensible, as the Commission itself admits that the European Union imports 60% of its consumption of fishery products.
There is, of course, an obvious lack of ambition which is quite visible in the proposed budgetary reduction that has been proposed: with less than EUR 20 million per year, we cannot expect the fisheries sector in the European Union to be able to develop.
Furthermore, this COM does not guarantee fishermen' s incomes, nor does it take into account the fact that in some countries such as Portugal, where small-scale coastal fishing, which supplies consumers with fresh fish caught in their own waters, predominates, producers' organisations are very weak, which means that they cannot be given such heavy responsibilities without considering the necessary financial resources.
Finally, as the report by Mrs Fraga Estévez states, it is not acceptable to change the system that has been laid down for exchanges with third countries because of the implications that this may have for European production.
Madam President, I should firstly like to congratulate Mr Gallagher on his excellent report that he has presented to us in detail.
I will therefore speak here about the Fraga Estévez report.
The Commission proposal on the reform of the fisheries COM was unacceptable as it stood and bordered on the schizophrenic.
In reality, if we are only able to subscribe to the objectives defined by the Commission in its explanatory statement, we must, unfortunately, observe that the mechanism proposed does not provide for the means necessary to achieve them.
On the contrary, the principles of Community preference and the regulation of the markets, as they have existed up to now, are called into question by the Commission' s proposal for reform.
Furthermore, the imbalance is also evident between the unjustified tariff suspensions in favour of third countries and completely inadequate measures to assist Community fishermen in increasing their competitiveness.
Our rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, in her draft report, incorporated a series of amendments that clearly improved the text, but we nevertheless felt that it was essential, together with Mr Gallagher, to table 31 additional amendments.
I should like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Fisheries, as 22 of these amendments have been adopted, thus making it possible to re-establish the founding principles of the CFP and the COM and to give the producers' organisations the role and the resources necessary to allow them to regulate and obtain the best return for the fishery and aquaculture products.
I retabled eight amendments in plenary on behalf of my group.
Among them, Mrs Fraga Estévez, I should like to stress the importance of Amendment No 67, which is an addition to Article 11, paragraph 1, of the proposal for a regulation.
This amendment aims to allow the Member States to grant additional aid to producers' organisations that, in the context of operational programmes under Article 9 of the regulation, introduce measures to obtain the best return for the species of fish caught and to equate supply with demand.
This aid should be able to be financed in the context of the FIFG.
I know, Mrs Fraga Estévez, that you approve and will support this amendment.
I therefore hope that it will be adopted by the majority of this House as it can contribute to consolidating and developing producers' organisations which, when they work efficiently, make it possible to avoid short-term over-fishing and, thanks to their efforts to obtain the best return for their fish, to safeguard jobs in fishing-dependent areas.
Madam President, the European Parliament has played a decisive role in maintaining the financial instrument of the FIFG and in defining correctly the areas dependent upon fishing within the context of the new objective 2.
If, in this way, we have been able to contribute, together with the Member States, to safeguarding a legal and financial framework specific to the CFP, it should now be used to the full to serve in the best way possible the needs of the coastal and maritime areas that depend on fishing.
That is what we propose.
Madam President, I want to thank Mr Gallagher for his report and to say that I agree completely with him when he makes the point that we have to accept the scientific information that is provided to us, and that it is on the basis of scientific information rather than political expediency that we must make decisions relating to conservation.
We should remember that we have evidence to suggest that if conservation measures are properly carried out and control is exercised we can increase the take for European fishermen by something like EUR 5,000 million worth of product a year.
At least that would go some distance to compensate fishermen for the loss and fishing areas for the loss of jobs they have experienced.
I want to thank Carmen Fraga for her report: a very comprehensive statement and advice to the Commission and Council on the whole business of marketing.
One of the extraordinary things about fish is that while fisherman have been finding it difficult and jobs have been reduced, the price of fish, almost alone as a food product, has been increasing continually over the years to the consumer in Europe.
At the same time, margins have been squeezed for fishermen.
So, we have to recognise that in the whole area of marketing and processing, there is an important job to be done.
I do not think that the annual allocation is sufficient to undertake that task.
Fishing is very different from other occupations. Nobody produces fish.
The fish are there. They are a public resource.
Why should we over-fish and at the same time contribute to withdrawals from the market?
Why should we over-fish and, at the same time, import a product which creates a price that is unacceptable? The herring sector referred to by Mr Gallagher is worthy of special consideration at the moment.
Herring is being sold at 20% lower prices than last year.
It is about or less than 20% of the price that we consider the minimum price for beef in the European Union; a high-value product, immensely valuable for health and normal maintenance of human life.
Why should such a product be taken out of the seas and then given away? It is a mistake for the Commission to propose that they should readjust the regulation to further exacerbate that particular problem.
Madam President, we voted in committee on the reform of the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products.
It is a sensitive subject, but this report was especially necessary.
The text on which we voted is a good text and we arrived at a good compromise.
I believe that it is a compromise of the kind that the European Union is capable of achieving when it is able to both transcend national interests and defend the common interests.
We know that the fisheries policy is one of the great European policies, even if it concerns very few Europeans, at least as producers, though many more obviously as consumers.
Since it was established in 1970, the Community fisheries market has changed a great deal.
Its regulation has adapted to this and this report must be defined as an additional stage in building a balanced organisation between the protection and the management of fishing resources.
Today, the report submitted to us strengthens the place of the consumer and the producers' organisations in the organisation of the market.
Let us not forget, however, that this reform will have consequences for the fisheries sector.
I shall refer to two of them briefly.
Where will our auctions fit into all this, in view of the pre-sale contracts included under Article 12? This development should not involve a kind of 'shift' of our territories.
Secondly, what will happen in the event of an economic crisis in the fisheries sector, if no provisions for exceptional circumstances are adopted? It would be better to make provision for all possible scenarios.
This report does not deal with the questions of the future, or at least with some of them, but I believe that our committee has done a good job and your report, Mrs Fraga Estévez, deserves considerable support.
I welcome and fully support Mr Gallagher's report: another good job done by that rapporteur.
In general terms, I welcome the thrust of Mrs Fraga's paper which should help to encourage market stability.
This use of forward-looking methods of adaptation of supply and demand by producer organisations should be of great assistance to the overall competitiveness and efficiency of the fishery sector as a whole.
The recognition of the importance of the processing sector is also welcome.
This is a sector which generates very significant employment and income, very often within otherwise fragile communities.
Stressing the importance of basing decisions on scientific and technical data and studies is fundamental, not just concerning the COM in fisheries, but also in general fisheries management.
Moreover, the fact that the proposal will bring improved transparency and knowledge of the market and products, especially for the consumer, is a positive move.
I also support the committee's amendments which seek to include aquaculture within the support mechanism.
The recent and on-going crises in the Scottish salmon industry as a result of the infectious salmon anaemia virus demonstrates more than amply that the aquaculture sector can also be volatile and unpredictable.
Therefore, careful planning and support is vital.
Madame President, can I congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mr Gallagher on the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, and Mrs Fraga on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and acquacultural products.
Both reports are generally worthy of support, and with Mr Gallagher' s report I have no fundamental problems.
On Mrs Fraga' s report, although I welcome the general thrust of the report, there are a couple of problems.
We welcome the common organisation of the markets and strengthening of the producer organisations, but I have problems firstly where there is a danger that costs are being pushed up unnecessarily and while we recognise that the level of intervention age needs increasing, maybe not in the way it is actually put here.
With regard to tariff suspensions, we believe the criteria are rather over-strict, and we would like a more liberal system.
We want to ensure that we can benefit the processing industry without affecting producers.
With respect to herring, we agree that the tariff suspension should be turned into an annual quota, and we accept the recommendations for cod, Alaska pollack and shrimp.
In terms of the amendments, we will certainly be opposing Amendment No 47 and I have to express some reservations on Amendments Nos 35 and 41, which we may be unable to support.
Madam President, thank you for having invited me today to speak about the two Commission proposals.
As you know, my colleague, Mr Fischler, is at the moment in Seattle and he has asked me to take his place.
We are dealing first of all with the reform of the common organisation of the market in the fisheries and aquaculture products sector.
The Commission is very pleased with the report by the European Parliament' s Committee on Fisheries and particularly with the detailed study undertaken by the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, who has made a valuable contribution to the debate.
The work of this Committee, that met for the last time on this subject on the same day as the Fisheries Council on 22 November, directly contributed to the discussions of the Council in this field.
As you already know, the Council reached a broad consensus.
Mr Fischler has only accepted this consensus provisionally. He told the ministers that he could only give his agreement to a final decision after having considered the opinion of the European Parliament.
I have listened with interest to the speakers today and I believe that they clearly illustrate the diversity of the fisheries market throughout the Union and therefore emphasise the need for us to take account of these factors.
We now need to examine the proposal and the opinion by Parliament from the point of view of their effect on all interested parties and not only on producers.
I should like to stress that it is important for this reform to apply to the whole fisheries chain and, consequently, for it to encourage integration in the market.
The main development of the Commission proposal is the fact that the common organisation of the market will henceforth cover consumers and the whole of the fisheries industry.
This Commission proposal is good for consumers, good for producers and good for the processing industry and I shall tell you why.
As far as consumers are concerned, the Commission proposal stipulates that essential information must be provided on the product.
The consumer will know what type of fish he is buying, how it has been produced and where it comes from.
In view of the importance of traceability, in all its aspects, in the food sector, and particularly from the point of view of food safety, these provisions will reassure consumers and allow them to be better informed when making purchasing decisions.
I am very pleased to note, Madam President, that the European Parliament is in agreement on this point.
However, the origin of the fishing boat does not concern the consumers directly and the fact that it is mentioned could be perceived as distorting trade with third countries.
As far as producers are concerned, the Commission proposal aims to redirect the incentives of the common organisation of the market in order to encourage improved supply planning.
The Commission has strengthened the role of the producers' organisations by proposing a new mechanism that encourages the producers to plan their activities in order to improve the balance between supply and demand.
Improved planning should lead to a reduction in withdrawals and thus make it possible to avoid waste.
The Commission can accept the general impetus of Parliament' s amendment in this field concerning the incorporation of the producer organisations of certain aquaculture species in the scope of the operational programmes.
We also acknowledge that some of the advantages of improved planning can also apply to the aquaculture sector.
If we subscribe to the idea of financial support in favour of these programmes, we feel that this support should be granted on a temporary basis and should not be linked to the value of the production owing to difficulties that may arise under the rules of international trade.
The second aspect of the amendments that will affect producers concerns the level of Community support in the form of interventions.
The Commission considers that a high level of withdrawals is not justified in view of the rarity of the fishery resources, both inside and outside Community waters.
If we are endeavouring to arrive at sustainability in the fisheries sector, we should not be encouraging the destruction of our resources.
Intervention should become a safety net for fishermen, that would only be used on rare occasions.
The Commission is of the opinion that we should reduce as far as possible the permanent withdrawals and move to support which is in favour of more active fishermen' s organisations that are better suited to the needs of the market.
The amendments by the European Parliament in this sphere argue in favour of a less radical reduction of the quantities eligible for support and of the financial aid for withdrawal, which is along the same lines as the consensus emerging between the Member States within the Council.
The Commission will therefore not stand in the way of an agreement but would be reluctant to accept all the proposed increases relating to intervention.
As far as the processing industry is concerned, the situation regarding trade with third countries is of prime importance.
Our processing industry should be able to supply itself with raw materials at world market prices in order to be competitive.
Failing this, we risk exporting jobs outside the Community to countries that can easily obtain staple commodities at competitive prices.
There are greatly differing views on the form of tariff duties to be applied to the majority of the vulnerable species: cuts of tuna, herring and cod.
I accept that there is no easy answer.
However, the recommendation by Parliament on laying down criteria applicable to future suspensions, instead of a decision on tariff suspensions in the context of the common organisation of the market, does not resolve the problem.
We should henceforth create a more stable situation for the processing industry.
In its approach, the Commission mainly applies the criterion according to which imported products should be raw materials intended for the processing industry for which the volume of Community production is inadequate.
It is clear that the prospects of the supply of white fish in the short and long term are worrying and the Community cannot allow itself to penalise its processing industry and leave third countries to create the added value provided by the industry.
To conclude on this first proposal, Madam President, the studies by the European Parliament and the Commission agree on some key points of the reform, particularly on the need to strengthen the role of the producers' organisations in the fisheries sector and in aquaculture and to improve the information provided to the consumer.
As far as intervention is concerned, the Commission cannot go as far as the European Parliament would like in relaxing the new discipline in respect of withdrawals, as it considers that this position is essential in the context of our efforts to conserve resources.
As far as trade with third countries is concerned, where we have a different approach to that of the European Parliament, the Commission is of the opinion that there is a considerable structural problem within the European market that justifies immediate action to save jobs in the processing sector.
I should now like, Madam President, to examine the second proposal by the Commission and, with this in mind, to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gallagher.
This proposal amends Regulation EC/850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the third time and this amendment aims to improve the conservation of fishing resources through technical measures for the improved protection of juveniles of marine organisms.
The mechanism proposed is based on a number of new elements that the Commission was only able to set down after the adoption of this Regulation.
This mechanism will strengthen the protection of adult and juvenile herring, while improving the protection of marine mammals.
The Commission proposal is supported by the competent scientific organisations like the International Commission for Marine Exploration and the Fisheries Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee.
The Commission is very pleased that the Committee on Fisheries has adopted the report by Mr Gallagher which approves the Commission' s proposal.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 11 a.m.
(The sitting was suspended at 10.55 a.m. while awaiting voting time and resumed at 11.05 a.m.)
Vote
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you can imagine, I followed the debates yesterday very attentively and the unanimous praise of the content and form of this report slightly worried me, as it is impossible, whatever the qualities of any compromise, to please everyone.
Today, as a last resort, it has been proposed that we reject the implementation of these two texts for two reasons that were put forward yesterday in the debates.
The first is that the European Union has not been recompensed for its efforts and that we certainly cannot hope for anything from the Turkish Government on account of the fact that since the implementation of the Customs Union agreements, no real progress has been made, according to some of our colleagues.
I will say to this House that in this agreement on Customs Union, it is the European Union that has been, by a long chalk, the beneficiary of the commitments entered into, since the balance of trade between the European Union and Turkey has doubled in favour of the European Union since the implementation of these agreements.
The second reason is the confirmation of the fact that Mr Öçalan has been condemned to death by the Turkish Supreme Court of Appeal and the fact that some of our colleagues now fear for Mr Öçalan' s life.
I would comment that there has been a de facto moratorium on the death penalty in Turkey for fifteen years and that the aim of the report we are voting on is precisely to urge the Turkish Government to change this de facto moratorium into a de jure moratorium and that, in any case, I wonder what our colleagues' reaction would be if, in their own country of origin, there was, as they desire, interference by the political power in the judiciary, since Mr Öçalan' s case is currently before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
So, for all these reasons, I would say that if you want to hang your dog you give him a bad name first, and I would therefore ask the House not to take account of this request for a referral.
Mr President, I should like to advocate that we defer the decision concerning this proposal.
Unlike the rapporteur, I do not think that this agreement should depend upon whether or not we ourselves stand to gain from such an agreement but upon whether human rights and democracy in Turkey will benefit from it.
That must be the crucial point for us.
Since we began to discuss these matters, the Turkish Parliament has confirmed its death sentence on Mr Öçalan.
We oppose the death penalty on principle.
We think that abolishing the death penalty is fundamental to safeguarding human rights.
I would therefore recommend that we defer the discussion of this point until such time as the Turkish Parliament has shown that it is willing to respect basic human rights in Turkey.
Mr President, in the past, this House has spoken out quite frequently and in no uncertain terms against the death penalty, be it in relation to Mr Öçalan or other individuals.
The death penalty should be abolished, and that goes for Turkey too!
This House has expressed its support for more human rights, for respect for the rights of minority groups, for improved relations between Turkey and Greece and for a resolution of the Cyprus question.
None of that is on the agenda today.
There is a predominant and overwhelming majority in this House.
Two specific reports are on the agenda today concerning the promises and pledges we have made to Turkey and, in particular, concerning the fact that those who incline towards the West, those of European outlook in Turkey, are gaining in strength.
I am therefore in favour of these reports being dealt with.
However, this has no bearing on the heavy criticism we will continue to levy at Turkey and its human rights record!
This is a point of order, specifically to protest at the President for not giving me the floor when I requested it, when I was the only Member to announce yesterday that they would be proposing this request for referral.
I would now like to express my satisfaction with it because it is obvious that the European Parliament must give a very clear signal that it will defend the values in which it believes, particularly to a country which is not just any country, but one that has embarked on the process of accession to the European Union.
(Parliament rejected the request for referral back to committee)
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
Report (A5-0065/1999) by Ms Breyer, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air (COM(1998) 591 - C4-0135/1999 - 1998/0333(COD))
(Parliament approved the legislative resolution)
Report (A5-0070/1999) by Mr Morillon, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a Council regulation regarding the implementation of measures to intensify the EC-Turkey Customs Union (COM(98) 600 - C4-0669/98 - 1998/0299(CNS))
(Parliament approved the legislative resolution)
Welcome
It is my great pleasure to welcome to the official gallery, the delegation from the Moroccan Parliament led by the President of the Council of the Moroccan Parliament, Mr Jalal Essaïd.
(Loud applause)
Vote (continuation)
That concludes the vote.
Explanations of vote - Pronk report (A5-0074/1999)
- (FR) Despite its very limited nature and the fact that it is clearly inadequate with regard to the problem, we shall vote in favour of the directive on "minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres" , inasmuch as it could represent progress in countries where workers are least protected.
However, in view of the fact that there is no provision either for real control - that is to say, carried out by the at risk workers themselves and more widely, by the population - or a sanction against employers guilty of negligence, the directive is likely to go unheeded.
The resolution, however, while claiming to place the safety and health of workers above considerations of a purely economic nature in Article 3, contradicts itself in Article 2 by refusing to impose constraints that would thwart the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings.
It will therefore remain up to the workers themselves to impose this minimum protection to which they should be entitled and which the directive does not even pretend to impose.
Morillon report (A5-0070/1999 and A5-0071/1999)
- (FR) Turkey' s application for membership of the European Union will probably be on the agenda of the next European Council meeting in Helsinki.
There is a strong movement developing, particularly in France, for Turkey to be recognised as having candidate country status on an equal footing with the other applicant countries for enlargement.
I should like to draw your attention to the risk of finding ourselves in the same situation as with the Customs Union.
According to those promoting it, the Customs Union between the European Union and Turkey should favour democratic reforms, human rights and the rights of minorities.
Against the opinion of our Group and many human rights associations such as "France Liberté" , which is chaired by Danielle Mitterrand, the Customs Union has been ratified and implemented.
Today we are discussing dealing with it in greater depth.
We have no choice but to note that human rights violations have continued.
The problem of the Kurds has still not been resolved.
The fact that Öçalan has been condemned to death has been confirmed.
Leyla Zana is still in prison.
The European Commission itself has been obliged to acknowledge that since the implementation of Customs Union, no significant progress has been made in Turkey in the field of human rights and democratic reform.
Let us learn from the experience of the Customs Union.
Encouraging Turkey' s "attachment to Europe" , as Jacques Chirac put it in Istanbul on 18 November, by recognising Turkey as a candidate country will be taken by the Turkish authorities as encouragement to continue the same policy.
I do not propose to rule out Turkey' s application to join the European Union for good, but we must first require of Turkey firm and definitive commitments and check that they are observed: the recognition of the rights of the Kurdish people, the abolition of the death penalty and a new judgement for Öçalan, the release of Leyla Zana and of all political prisoners and the application of United Nations resolutions to resolve the Cyprus problem.
The report by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy takes care to refer to the matter of human rights, but, after having amended the Commission proposal, it comes out in favour of continuing and increasing the Customs Union with Turkey.
I cannot approve this step because it is time to send a clear signal to Turkey by blocking or suspending the implementation of the Customs Union.
- (FR) I should like to congratulate Mr Morillon on having stated clearly that the aim of these two reports is not to discuss Turkey' s eligibility.
It is indeed a matter of preparing this country, which is an official applicant State, by means of measures that aim to reinforce, on the one hand, the EC Customs Union with Turkey (EUR 15 million over 3 years) and, on the other, Turkey' s economic and social development (EUR 135 million over 3 years).
These proposals for regulations presented by the Commission in October 1998, following a request from the General Affairs Council, aim to release financial assistance from the European Union to Turkey.
If the proposal for a regulation associated with Customs Union, based on Article 235 of the Treaty, requires unanimous adoption by the Council, the second regulation can be adopted by codecision and therefore allows for a majority decision.
The splitting of the regulations is justified by the desire to get out of a "blocked" situation in the Council.
It is not before time!
It is our duty to encourage Turkey to continue the reforms undertaken to improve its economy, to restructure and increase the efficiency of its public service, modernise its economic and social infrastructure, develop its production sector and increase the economic and social cohesion of the country.
What I appreciate in these regulations is the fact that it is intended that cooperation projects and operations, the local and regional authorities, the public bodies and especially society, associations, NGOs etc., will benefit. I consider it essential to involve the Turkish people with the change that is taking place in their country.
At the same time, it will be necessary to monitor the progress of these cooperation projects and operations and, of course, to involve the European Parliament in this monitoring.
There is provision, and I am pleased about this, for the Council to decide to suspend all cooperation if obstacles stand in the way of the implementation of the projects and operations (more particularly in the field of democracy, human rights and the protection of minorities).
In this case it will be necessary to take a qualified majority decision on a proposal by the Commission or the European Parliament.
Turkey should indeed be pushed in the direction of greater respect for human rights.
It is not easy, as can be seen from the fact that Öçalan has been condemned to death, even despite European and international protests.
We should persevere, however, and I would hope that giving Turkey the prospect of membership of the European Union will encourage the Turkish authorities to respect human rights better, to promote democratic practices and to liberate the occupied part of Cyprus.
As the Helsinki Summit approaches, where the status of Turkey will be discussed, our Parliament owes it to itself to send a strong political signal, despite the understandable reservations of certain people.
- (FR) We shall not vote in favour of the resolution by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy as, despite the convoluted wording, the claimed concerns about human rights ill conceal purely mercenary interests.
Moreover, the rapporteur himself emphasises the fact that the balance of trade is increasingly in favour of the European Union.
The reason for our refusal to vote in favour of the resolution is to protest both against the conditions that the workers of this country have to endure, against the oppression of the Kurdish people and against the failure of the Turkish State to respect basic freedoms.
Having said that, it is not only in Turkey that the rights of workers and basic freedoms are trampled underfoot.
In no way do we consider membership of the European Union as an honour that a State should deserve, or indeed a guarantee of democracy.
Also, if the incorporation of Turkey into the European Union meets the requirements of the large industrial and commercial groups, which are European primarily and Turkish only as a secondary consideration, it will in no way improve the fate of the working classes in this country, any more than the European Union has protected workers in the countries already integrated from unemployment and the deterioration of their living conditions.
- (FR) This discussion is the opportunity for us to express our solidarity with the Turkish and Kurdish workers and people.
It is up to them to decide whether or not they join the European Union and if they decide to do so, it is not up to us to oppose their membership.
However, that will not stop us continuing to condemn the repression of this regime, which was inherited from the military dictatorship in 1980 and which today threatens to execute Öçalan and refuses to allow the Kurdish people self-determination.
Before they start preaching about democracy, European governments should set an example and begin by granting voting rights to three million Turkish and Kurdish immigrant workers who live in EU countries.
This is the same EU, which exploits Turkey via the Customs Union without financial compensation.
The aid must benefit the destitute populations in Turkey.
In order to achieve this, the priority must not be economic or customs relations, but relations between the ordinary people and organisations in Turkey and those of other European countries.
It is for these reasons that I shall abstain on the report on economic and social development and I shall vote against the report on EC/Turkey Customs Union.
Breyer report (A5-0065/1999)
. (DA) Air pollution as a result of discharges of dangerous materials into the atmosphere is a cross-frontier environmental problem which has a drastic effect upon public health.
It is therefore gratifying that the Commission has taken the initiative to prepare a draft directive concerning limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide.
It is, however, tremendously important that the proposal also deals with the requirement to provide the public with information about air quality, published on the basis of a very careful monitoring of benzene and carbon monoxide levels.
I also welcome the fact that, in its report, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has tightened up its demand for absolutely comprehensible and easily accessible data so that the public is kept informed at all times about air quality and any pollution problems stemming from dangerous emissions.
Sjöstedt report (A5-0044/1999)
As Member of Parliament of a country that has a Baltic coastline, I want to promote, in every way I can, the protection of the marine environment in the Baltic Sea area.
I regard the amendments on agricultural effluent proposed in Annex III as very positive.
In my opinion, the prevention of pollution by ships is also very important, and it is indeed with regard to that point that a few factors should be taken into account, which I would now like to mention.
There are great differences between the parties to the agreement in the way they comply with the agreement on environmental protection.
This is partly owing to technical resources.
The states of the European Union comply scrupulously with the terms of the agreement, but there are enormous defects in Russia and the Baltic countries, for example, regarding equipment for collecting waste that comes from ships.
Monitoring by the authorities is not as efficiently organised as in the EU countries either.
A reform of the rules means considerable levels of investment for our industry, so it is important that the new rules make it possible for us to achieve tangible results with regard to the protection of the environment.
In the future, we should try to bring pressure on new Member States to adopt the right sort of attitude and procure the correct equipment.
Fraga Estévez report (A5-0067/1999)
Helsinki European Council (B5-0310/1999)
I abstained on this resolution, and I have two points of particular reservation.
The issue of the Euro-bond market is of general concern to all people in Europe; it is not just a London issue.
It is certainly one with which we have concerns in Scotland and I was disappointed in the way that vote turned out.
Last night, in the debate, I referred to remarks made yesterday by the Secretary-General of NATO.
I would like again to draw attention to the fact that he deliberately engaged in party-political debate within the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to Scotland.
In doing that, he appears to me to have misrepresented both the position of Ireland as confirmed by Minister Andrews in this morning' s Irish Times and the position of my own party in this argument in the United Kingdom.
Senior civil servants of international bodies ought not to engage in that kind of party-political dialogue.
On that account, I was very disappointed with the remarks about NATO here.
- (DA) The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have today voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution concerning the preparations for the European Council meeting in Helsinki on 10-11 December 1999, because we are generally in agreement with the motion' s recommendations concerning the important themes relating to employment, the environment, enlargement of the European Union etc. which are on the agenda.
This explanation of vote does not, however, alter the attitude we expressed earlier regarding the European Parliament' s discussion of the report from Messrs Dimitrakopoulos and Leinen concerning the preparations for the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference.
We remain of the view that Heads of State and Government should first and foremost be setting a realistic agenda which will make it possible to conclude the Intergovernmental Conference before the end of the year 2000 in such a way that the Treaties do not present obstacles to the forthcoming enlargement of the EU.
We are also still of the view that the EU should not be expanded into a proper defence alliance. This ought to remain NATO' s role.
The EU should, on the other hand, play an expanded role in connection with humanitarian tasks.
- (DE) The non-attached Members will endorse the joint resolution in the final vote but would like, at the same time, to point out that the position on the question of reforming the Treaties and on the preparation and holding of the Intergovernmental Conference, which your voting behaviour in respect of the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report gave expression to, remains unaltered.
- (SV) I have voted against the resolution, mainly because the European Parliament is again offering its support to a militarisation of the EU.
I had wanted to vote in favour of the original text of the resolution from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance but, unfortunately, that was not possible.
The text reads in terms of emphasising that further development of the CFSP ought primarily to be based upon the principle that conflicts and crises must be prevented and handled by peaceful and civil means, that there should only be recourse to military means as a last resort and that this ought to be adequately supported by a UN or OSCE mandate and not lead to increased defence expenditure.
- (SV) I cannot support the resolution because I do not support the demands for common defence or for a common tax policy.
Torres Marques report (A5-0076/1999)
Mr President, the report by the European Parliament on the length of the transitional period for the introduction of the euro is an opportunity for us to recall some disturbing truths.
Firstly, although there has been a great campaign to promote the euro, particularly at the time when it was launched, although it is now legally in force and it has even experienced some nerve-racking misfortunes on the international markets, people seem to have completely forgotten that it exists.
They continue, in great numbers, to use the national currencies to which they are accustomed and they only use euros very rarely.
What is worse, it seems that they are becoming less prepared to use them in the future.
The opinion polls, at least in France, show that the percentage of people who envisage opening an account in euros in the near future has been falling regularly since 1 January 1999 and today only constitutes a small minority.
That really is the last straw, because the closer we get to 31 December 2001, the more this percentage should, on the contrary, be increasing.
Everything seems to show that our fellow citizens do not see any point at all in actually changing to the euro in their daily lives.
However, the European Parliament wishes to disabuse them of this and once again recommends an information campaign which, according to the resolution, should cover both the practical aspects and the basic significance of monetary union.
Well, there we are: once again, reminding those people who think that it serves no purpose how useful the euro actually is.
For my part I am going to ask a controversial question: what if, by chance, our fellow citizens were right?
And what if they really had got to the bottom of it?
And what if the entering of the euro into daily life really did serve no purpose? Well, the transitional period of three years would have at least had the merit of showing us that we can very easily live, on the one hand, with a euro that is living its own rather chaotic life on the international markets and, on the other hand, with national currencies still in circulation, to the great satisfaction of consumers.
Let us have the good sense to remain in this situation, Mr President, and let us have confidence in the modern means of payment like charge cards or the electronic wallet to make life easier for travellers and those living near borders.
Mr President, I voted against the Torres Marques report with regard to the introduction of the euro because my group, the Dutch Socialist Party, has always campaigned against the introduction of a single currency.
We will remain opposed to it as long as this currency is to the detriment of investment in a sound social policy, sound collective provisions, an active environmental policy and an income policy for the benefit of the lowest income bracket.
The introduction of a single currency is too soon to say the least.
This is why I do not agree with a number of accompanying measures intended to shape and facilitate this introduction.
- (FR) I welcome the report by Mrs Torres Marques with great satisfaction.
She has made a relevant study of the technical difficulties that we still have to resolve in order to prepare properly for the introduction of the euro.
We should not bury our heads in the sand and ignore the problems that are far from being completely resolved and public opinion is far from being ready.
That is why, today, following the example of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of the European Commission and of our rapporteur, I also believe that the reduction of the three year transitional period could give rise to very considerable technical difficulties that may jeopardise the process of the smooth transition to the euro.
The technical obstacles that would present the greatest difficulties in reducing the transitional period are, in particular: the time limits for manufacturing the notes and coins in euros; the considerable scale of the changes to be made to computer systems and also the fact that the change to the euro for public administrations was planned for 2002 in order to take account of the complexity of the changes to be made in this sector.
Beyond these technical obstacles, making the transitional period shorter would jeopardise one of the strengths of the success of the euro which is the confidence associated with the economic and social factors (whose preparation is still inadequate) around a timetable that is precise and respected.
I even say this myself as someone who was initially in favour of a tighter timetable.
With the same concern for the smooth transition to the euro, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs made a proposal, one that I support, which aims to allow the consumer to start changing his national currency into coins and notes made out in euros from the beginning of December 2001.
In the same way, the supply to the banks of coins and notes should start well before January 2002 and the supply to retailers and public administrations should occur from the beginning of December 2001.
Furthermore, from the second week of January 2002, retail businesses should only give change in euros rather than in the national currency.
I also agree with Mrs Torres Marques when she rejects a legal obligation and only advocates a recommendation in this regard.
As far as the period beginning 1 January 2002 is concerned, where two currencies will be in circulation at the same time, a period which, under the terms of the Treaty could run for up to six months, I share the opinion of the rapporteur and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council that this period should be reduced to two months.
For this, we should step up the active information campaigns for our citizens.
I shall conclude by stressing a problem that is continuing intolerably and which concerns bank charges and exchange charges.
This contributes to creating unease among our citizens as to the actual advantages of the euro.
I have, moreover, warned the Commission and the Council by means of written questions, but I have not received any reply to date.
This is serious at a time when the euro is going through a crisis of confidence.
- (FR) On the pretext of technical measures (the manufacture of banknotes), the report proposes to undertake a campaign to promote the single currency.
It is less a matter of speaking of the 'practical aspects' of the euro than of stressing its 'fundamental significance' .
It is true that the virtues of the euro do not seem to speak for themselves!
Categorising the sceptics in advance as illiterates, partially sighted and hard of hearing does not make the report any more convincing.
This document states that the Central European Bank has been using the euro for its monetary operations since 1 January without ever offering an explanation of the criteria of its exchange policy.
The single currency is therefore not at all a democratic asset for the citizens of Europe, but a powerful tool of monetarism, as can be seen from the recent increase in the rate of interest.
On the financial markets, the euro has been in place since 4 January 1999.
The ordinary people - those who have never speculated on currencies - continue to travel and make purchases while having money extorted from them by bank committees.
It is all the more scandalous as the currency rate will be fixed henceforth.
The real questions are not being addressed: a single currency for whom and for what purpose?
For all these reasons, I shall be voting against this report.
That concludes the explanations of vote.
Adjournment of the session
I declare adjourned the session of the European Parliament.
(The sitting closed at 12.25 p.m.)
Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on 2 December 1999.
Madam President, I should like briefly to raise one matter which concerns me.
You know that I hold you in high esteem and I also fully supported very many of the points which you made in your speech in Helsinki.
There is one point which could create a misunderstanding.
Twice in your speech you spoke of cultural integration in connection with Turkey's possible membership or candidate status.
Given that this issue is highly sensitive and that a parliamentary delegation has just returned from a short trip to Turkey, I wanted to ask you, Madam President, to clarify this matter, in particular with a view to the fact that official statements have already been made that the European Union is a Christian community.
Did your reference to cultural integration encompass this aspect? Perhaps you could shed some light on this because I have no desire to move closer to the Islamic religion or culture, nor is it likely that we can demand movement in the opposite direction.
In any event, it would appear that for some of us, at least, this concept of cultural integration in connection with Turkey requires further explanation.
I would be very grateful if you could clarify this.
Thank you, Mr Swoboda.
We are not going to start a debate to explain my speech at Helsinki.
I believe I said exactly what you have just said, i.e. that it was a problem for some parties.
I also said, if you read the text attentively - I hope it has been translated properly - that Parliament was divided on the issue, and that there were several opinions, that discussions had not yet been completed.
If you examine my speech carefully, you will see that I did not permit myself to bring things to a conclusion.
I said, besides, that there may also be a problem of boundaries, and that a broad debate is already in full swing within the European Parliament.
That is quite simply what I meant to say.
Madam President, I would like to express in this House my amazement and my indignation at the fact that Commissioner Fischler should find himself, at the invitation of Mr Haider, at the inauguration ceremony of Carinthia House in Brussels last week.
I think the presence of a Commissioner by the side of a man whose racist and xenophobic ideas are notorious is equivalent to an endorsement, and moreover an endorsement that is an infringement of Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
I would like to see the Commission providing an explanation of this matter, Madam President, within this part-session.
Thank you, Mr Wurtz.
I note your comment.
Madam President, our regulations stipulate that Members of Parliament must be able to meet freely, within the European Parliament, any person resident on Union territory, and the quaestors are responsible for this, pursuant to the terms of Rule 25.
The fact remains, Madam President, that it is still necessary to actually make it possible for such persons to have access to Parliament.
Last week, a group of schoolchildren from a school in France was unable to pay a visit to the European Parliament in Brussels, as expected, because some of its pupils, nationals of a country outside the European Union, did not receive an entry/exit visa to the area concerned in sufficient time.
Would it be possible, Madam President, for you to refer the matter to the Member States, in order to establish an automatic simplified visa which may be made available within far shorter time limits so that all the schoolchildren invited to meet us when they come on school trips may actually be permitted to make the trip to the European Parliament, be it in Brussels or Strasbourg.
We shall indeed look into this matter in order to find a favourable solution.
Thank you, Mrs Berger, for adding this important detail.
Thank you, Mr Seguro.
I shall do so very willingly, on behalf of the whole Parliament, and I believe that the applause shows that your request is well supported.
Madam President, I should simply like to assure Mr Swoboda that there most certainly is a European culture.
If there were not then there would be no Europeans, and there would be no point in building a European Union.
I should like to thank the Italian MEPs concerned for setting up the wonderful Christmas crib opposite the Chamber and I would invite all colleagues to take a look at this piece of European culture.
Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot start a debate on the subject, especially if the party concerned is not present.
Mr President, I would very much like to bring to your attention the problems we are facing in Brussels, in particular those arising between the Members' chauffeurs and the security service.
We are currently facing enormous problems in this regard, which are causing a great deal of delay.
The Members have to wait in a basement full of exhaust fumes, which delays them and which does not do their health much good either.
Further to this, I would also like to bring to your notice the matter of the drop-off point next to this Parliament, since I can envisage problems, especially in winter, when one has to walk the 150 metres across the courtyard.
Perhaps it would be possible for the point to be set up on the other side, near the entrance.
We take note of your comment and we shall ask the quaestors to look into ways of providing a favourable solution.
Madam President, a remark on the question concerning European culture.
All Members of the European Parliament have had some very attractive UNICEF Christmas cards handed out to them to use for their Christmas and New Year greetings.
These cards are supplied with a paper insert showing the EU' s blue flag and a text in eleven languages.
This reads as follows: Best Wishes, De bedste ønsker, Frohes Fest, Meilleurs Vux, Migliori Auguri, Beste Wensen, Boas Festas and, in Swedish, Med bäste lyckönskningar, as it has become.
Now, these are not phrases you would normally write at Christmas. So what is going on?
In fact, it looks as if the European Union has become so self-effacing in its response to other cultures that we dare not acknowledge the fact that it is Christmas and our culture' s New Year which we are to be celebrating shortly.
It is obviously considered that we might offend against other religions if we were to emphasise that we are in fact a Christian part of the world and that in Europe we therefore say Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Joyeux Noël et Bonne Année etc.
Madam President, this is not first and foremost a question of religion or faith.
For me, it is a matter of daring to stand by one' s own culture.
A people or nation or Europe which, out of a misguided sense of protocol, does not cherish its own culture is in danger of dying out, so I would call on my colleagues to throw away the EU' s insert and just use UNICEF' s beautiful Christmas cards.
Thank you, Mr Camre. I do not think we can easily undertake a debate on European culture.
It would take us the whole night.
Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House.
Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election.
If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century.
We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections.
All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.
Madam President, I would just like to address you on behalf of the Members of Parliament who stay behind on Friday morning.
We have the impression that we are being left very much to our own devices in this building.
Let me give you just one example. On the Friday of the last part-session, I wanted to access my mail.
I tried, but it was impossible.
I attempted to contact an official.
Honestly, I did everything I could, but there was no one who could help me.
I discussed this with other Members who were also still here with me on Friday morning, and the general opinion was that we felt that we had been utterly deserted.
Thank you, Mrs Roure, I take due note of your comment, and we shall attempt to overcome your feeling of abandonment.
Madam President, I myself have two children who are Protestants and I always celebrate Christmas in the proper way.
I wanted to say this to my fellow Members.
However, personally I am not a Christian.
Jews, Muslims and many people of other faiths live in Europe.
For this reason I should like my colleagues to accept, at long last, that Europe is not populated solely by Christians.
Although I am not a Christian, I am still a Member of this House.
Some interventions make me wonder where on earth I am.
Does this mean that I am not a European? Perhaps Mr Posselt might like to answer that question.
Thank you, Mr Ceyhun.
You see, Mr Swoboda, when I said cautiously in my text that the debate was far from over, I believe that ultimately I was quite right, and that this is indeed a major debate.
Madam President, in a short intervention on this matter, I would like to ask Mr Swoboda not to make this kind of racist and xenophobic statement.
It is to the Arab world, to Arabic culture, that Europe today owes its entire Greek heritage; it is to the Arab world that it owes all its understanding of Greek culture.
Mr Swoboda, please stop using this kind of language, because I do not think that it has any place in today' s Europe.
Thank you, Mr Ripoll y Martinez de Bedoya.
Agenda
The next item is the order of business.
The draft agenda has been distributed and the following amendments have been proposed or made (Rule 111 of the Rules of Procedure):
Relating to Monday:
Regarding Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi' s report, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the verification of the credentials of Members, the PPE-DE Group has requested that this report be examined after the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the same Committee, on civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles.
Madam President, what the PPE-DE Group has actually requested is, since this is a very short report, if it could go before Mr Rothley' s report on vehicle insurance.
So you would like it to be presented before Mr Rothley' s report.
(Parliament gave its assent)
Still relating to Monday, i.e. today, regarding the recommendation for the second reading on substances depleting the ozone layer and the motion for a resolution on the labelling of foodstuffs produced using genetically modified organisms, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has requested that these two items be tabled at a different time on the grounds that their examination in plenary session would coincide with the committee meeting, which would not be very practical.
Given that these items can not be brought forward on the agenda, I would propose that they be entered at the end of today' s agenda, i.e. after Mr Aparicio Sánchez' s report.
I think that is all we can do.
The committee meets at 7.30 tonight, because we have to deal with a proposal which has come late to us from the European Commission.
We understand that we cannot accelerate the procedure so that we come first on the list of subjects for debate, so we will debate this, as usual in a crowded House, at about 11.15 tonight.
Is there a Member who wishes to speak against this request?
(Parliament gave its assent)
Tuesday and Wednesday: no amendments proposed.
Relating to Thursday: President.
We now come to Mr Chichester' s report, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on units of measurement.
The PPE-DE Group has requested that this should be voted without debate, and the vote should be included in voting time on Wednesday.
This report was adopted in committee by an overwhelming majority of 47 to 1 without amendment.
It concerns a small but important modification of an existing directive which needs to be implemented before the end of this year in order to prevent many European companies from being in breach from January onwards.
The Finnish Presidency would very much like to adopt this proposal in Council this week.
The last meeting of the Council this year is on Thursday and, if the House wills it and is agreeable, I would like to make a formal proposal that, instead of a debate, we have a vote on the report on Wednesday.
This would enable the Council to go through its procedures very swiftly and make a lot of European industries happy.
I understand that it would be something of a first to achieve agreement with unanimity in the Council on the first reading.
I should therefore like to propose a vote without debate on Wednesday.
Is there a Member who wishes to speak against this request?
(Parliament gave its assent)
I must point out that the deadline for the submission of amendments must be brought forward to 10 a.m. on Tuesday 14 December.
Regarding the subjects for the debate on topical and urgent debates of major importance, we have received several requests for amendments.
Firstly, the PPE-DE Group wishes to have the sub-item "Prison conditions of political prisoners in Djibouti" replaced by a new sub-item entitled "Arrest of the President of the Court of Auditors in Nicaragua" .
Who wishes to speak in favour of this proposal?
Madam President, the arrest of the President of the Nicaraguan Court of Auditors is indeed extremely worrying.
This is a case of someone who is currently in prison just as presidential elections are about to be held in Nicaragua.
We feel that the European institutions must now draw attention to this matter.
We will be approving next year' s budget with considerable amounts earmarked for the plan for the reconstruction of Nicaragua after the damage caused by hurricane Mitch, and I think that our role must be to support and uphold democratic institutions, which are seeking to ensure that the rules are properly observed.
Therefore, Madam President, we feel that for all of these reasons, given the situation, we must adopt this matter for a topical and urgent debate.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this proposal?
Madam President, I would just like to say that the case brought up by Mr Salafranca is unquestionably a serious one, and that his proposal is one worthy of support, but not at the expense of the case of political prisoners in Djibouti, who are sick, have been left untreated and are detained in utterly inhuman conditions for a very long time now.
I believe that in this matter a great deal is expected of the European Parliament, and we would be giving out quite the wrong signal if we were to strike this topic from our debate.
I shall now put to the vote the PPE-DE proposal with a view, therefore, to replacing one item by another, given that it is not possible to add another item since the number of subjects is limited to five.
(Parliament approved the request)
I have received three requests for additions to the "human rights" item.
As you know, Annex 3 paragraph 4 of the Rules of Procedures stipulates that the "human rights" item may include only five items.
We already have four items entered on the list given in the final draft agenda, which means that we can only add one of the new items proposed.
The requests for additions shall therefore be put to the vote in order of their submission, and they shall be mutually exclusive.
These requests are as follows.
Firstly, the request from the PPE-DE Group for a sub-item entitled "Restoring civil rights to members of deposed European royal families" .
Next, the request from the PSE Group for a sub-item on the "Fiftieth anniversary of the Geneva Convention" and finally the ELDR Group' s request for a sub-item on "Angola" .
We shall now put to the vote the proposal on the restoration of civil rights to the members of former European royal families.
Madam President, you were very kind to receive me and His Royal Highness Prince Victor Emmanuel of Italy this afternoon, so I believe you know the full details behind the case.
But just to refresh the memories of colleagues, the motion which was circulated to Parliament was about restoring the rights of former royal families of Europe, in particular those of Austria and Italy, who are still denied their full civil and political rights as citizens of the European Union.
Prince Victor Emmanuel has been in exile for 50 years now.
He is an old man.
He is asking to be allowed to go back to his country of origin.
Why is this urgent? Because this law to amend the Italian constitution has been before the Senate three or four times and the left have always obstructed it, although they have paid lip service to the idea that it is possible to make a new law to allow him back in.
I want this Parliament to call upon the Commission to look at this issue from a European Union perspective for the first time and reinstate these families' full civil and political rights.
My case rests there.
Madam President, I do not have anything against Victor Emmanuel as such or against anybody from Austria referred to in the motion, although I am old enough to remember the Italian occupation of my country during the reign of Victor Emmanuel.
In any case, this is not the issue, the issue is the extremely general wording contained in the motion, i.e. "civil rights for members of former royal European houses, any former royal European houses" .
We too have a former royal house, whose misdemeanours are a lot more recent. I should like to declare, therefore, on behalf of the PASOK representatives, that we find it totally unacceptable that these issues are being discussed as it is an intrusion into an extremely delicate matter which should be discussed in our country before being brought to bear at European level.
Besides, as regards the basic matter of the status of the ex-Royal Family, the Greek people expressed their opinion quite clearly in the 1974 referendum.
Madam President, I draw your attention to Annex III of the Rules of Procedure which lays down the guidelines and general principles to be followed when choosing the subjects to be included on the agenda for topical and urgent debates of major importance.
It specifies in paragraph 1 that these matters ought actually to be urgent and relate to an event such that the current part-session is the only part-session of the European Parliament at which a vote can be held in time.
This is an important issue.
It has been on the agenda of many national parliaments for many years.
But I fail to see why it is urgent in the sense of our rules.
Madam President, I would like to take the floor in regard to the order of business, and to refer to history.
As regards the order of business, I would like to stress that the matter is, in fact, urgent. And so I am responding to the point of order the Member was making because if we do not consider something urgent after 55 years then there is something wrong with us.
I would also like to refer to history for the benefit of Mr Katiforis, a defender of Greek culture.
I would like to remind him that when Prince Victor Emmanuel was exiled from his native country he was four years old which, in my opinion, makes it unlikely that he could have invaded Greece.
The most he could have done was invade his back garden!
Therefore, I am asking the Members to brush up on the cultural history of our peoples and of Europe.
I think it is important to keep to the subject and not to hold political and ideological prejudices which are so strong that they prevent us from keeping calm when considering human rights in this Chamber.
The request Mr Tannock has made concerns human rights, and, a few days ago, fifty years of human rights in Europe were celebrated.
I think it is quite obvious that this request is relevant, especially for this part-session which is ending a century of war and, we hope, ushering in a millennium of peace.
Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot start a debate on this subject.
Mr Corbett' s contribution was indeed a point of order since it raised the question of the urgent nature of the proposed sub-item, and Mrs Muscardini responded.
Now we are going to put the PPE-DE request to the vote.
(Parliament rejected the request)
We shall now move on to the request on the fiftieth anniversary of the Geneva Convention.
Who is to speak in favour of this request?
Madam President, I do not think that we should miss this opportunity to commemorate this anniversary, which marks a very important milestone for mankind.
We have achieved a great deal.
We could dispense with a debate because we have already achieved everything we set out to do.
However, since much remains to be done both within and outside Europe, we should at least draft a clear opinion on the subject in this Parliament.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak against?
Madam President, a point of order.
It is kind of Mr Corbett to raise the points under Annex III of our Rules of Procedure.
Given that this is a fiftieth anniversary, we could take this at any part-session, rather than at this particular one.
Therefore we could put it under a motion for debate at some point in the future.
I agree entirely with your proposal. I only regret that it should come so late.
I imagine that Mr Swoboda and his friends would have voted differently just now on the proposal regarding political prisoners in Djibouti if they had know that the item on Nicaragua could have been on the agenda.
I therefore suggest that the vote on the Djibouti prisoners be repeated.
But the item on the conditions of detention of political prisoners in Djibouti is still in, Mr Wurtz.
Do not worry.
I must respect the wishes of the House.
I note that none of the three sub-items proposed for inclusion has been adopted.
I therefore take the liberty of asking you, if you approve, to add the Nicaragua sub-item.
I feel this is perfectly in order.
(Parliament gave its assent)
Relating to Friday: no amendments proposed (The order of business was adopted thus amended)
WTO Millennium Round
The next item is the Commission statement on the WTO Millennium Round (Seattle, 30 November to 3 December 1999).
May I welcome Mr Pascal Lamy and immediately give him the floor.
Madam President, the Seattle Conference ended in failure.
Why? I can see two circumstantial reasons and one intrinsic reason.
The circumstances are familiar to you.
Firstly, the conference failed due to lack of time.
Only Friday afternoon remained, i.e. too little time to come to a conclusion within a reasonable period.
This can be explained by the way the conference itself was run, since it did not enable any real negotiation until the last two days.
There was also, another circumstantial reason, a manifest inability on the part of some delegations to engage in a real process of negotiation on the order of business and, in this respect, one has to wonder if the fact that the opening of the conference coincided with the launching of the election campaign in the United States was a good thing.
It indeed appeared that this country was scarcely prepared to shift position on any subject whatsoever, which by definition makes it hard to conclude negotiations successfully.
As for the intrinsic reason, I believe that the failure of the conference can be explained by the gap between the ambitions of the World Trade Organisation and its resources.
WTO procedures proved to be inappropriate to the simultaneous requirement to integrate new parties, i.e. an increasing number of developing countries who are demanding their place around the table, and new subjects, which goes beyond our traditional agenda.
These new subjects are ones that you are aware of: the environment, social standards, for example.
Considering the number of parties and subjects involved and the fundamental differences between a number of participants, the chances of arriving at an agreement were extremely slim.
If we dwell for a moment on this intrinsic reason, I believe it must be acknowledged that the WTO must no longer henceforth supervise the negotiation of liberalisation between industrialised countries and that this order has been changed in two ways: firstly, it is no longer possible to limit ourselves to lowering some tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade.
We must concern ourselves with the impact of this liberalisation on the main parameters of our development models, the fundamental rights of workers, environmental and health protection, cultural diversity, multifunctionality in agriculture and quality of the environment.
Secondly, it is no longer possible to circumscribe negotiation to just a few participants, the Union and its friends, the United States and the Cairns group.
In Seattle, it was necessary, more than in the past, to take into account the chief third world partners, India, Brazil, South Africa, Egypt, plus the emerging economies, particularly in South East Asia, and also our partners, the ACP countries.
Tomorrow, we shall probably also have to take China into account.
The combination of new subjects and new participants opens up very good prospects of progressing towards controlled globalisation, but the difficulty of such an enterprise is readily apparent.
As far as the issues were concerned, the Union had made good preparations for Seattle, advocating a broad agenda which complied with the expectations of society, and which was championed by Parliament, the elected body, the legitimate representative of this society.
In addition to extending the negotiations to all the partners, including developing countries, the European Union also took the initiative to open up the conference by means of an offer to guarantee the least advanced countries broad zero-duty access to the markets of the industrialised countries.
It succeeded in aligning, first, Japan with this initiative, and then also perhaps the United States and Canada.
But let us make no mistake and let us keep our eyes open wide.
In return for their support of our agenda in terms of society, the environment, health and workers' rights, developing countries with average revenue and emerging economies are going to be asking for substantial improvements in access to our markets.
And Seattle has demonstrated that we still had to convince these countries that our concerns, your concerns, are something other than reflexes in defence of our own well-being which often seems so much of a privilege to them.
Let me just briefly mention the European Union' s strategy in Seattle.
The Community is well positioned to build bridges between the positions of industrialised countries and developing countries.
We showed this clearly at Seattle, where we were well prepared both politically and in terms of content and we enjoyed the support, the precious support, I believe, of both the Council and of Parliament.
We remained united and, at the same time, open.
Occasionally, we shifted position if it was deemed necessary in order to move the negotiations on. This was the case, for example, regarding the biotechnology group, which I considered appropriate to accept at a certain time.
This gave rise to sharp criticism from some Member States, and indeed from some Members of Parliament.
I take full responsibility for the risk
taken at this time, given that the European Union was the only delegation which was pushing an ambitious agenda on the subject of the environment.
I remain convinced that a biotechnology group focussed on factual analysis and not on negotiation would have been a small price to pay in order to get a considerable raft of environmental proposals through.
We also made a major effort as regards information and participation in order to put into practice the intentions I expressed before this House during the parliamentary hearings in September.
A delegation of representatives of the European Parliament was part of our Community delegation.
We kept in contact on an on-going basis, enabling an exchange of views and information, which proved to be extremely useful to me in my capacity as a negotiator.
This positive experience strengthens my conviction that we should continue to involve the European Parliament more closely in framing our common trade policy.
In the interests of increased transparency, we also, for the first time, brought in a group of consultants representing management and unions, the Economic and Social Committee and NGOs.
Through them, we maintained contact with society and economic and social interest groups.
Daily briefings were organised for the economic organisations and the NGOs accredited by the WTO.
On the whole, we return from Seattle with the feeling that we did much to make this conference a success.
Now we have to continue the work which has been started.
What direction should we be going in and what do we have to do now?
The Commission considers that initiating a new round on the basis of a broad agenda remains our priority.
We must now, however, proceed with caution.
A second failed attempt would, of course, be disastrous.
It is not clear at present at what time we will be able to recommence the round of negotiations.
You have to realise that there is a real feeling of discontent in developing countries, and that any attempt to restart the process must necessarily involve repairing the damage caused in this area, which may take some time.
What are our options? I can see three possibilities.
The first scenario is to convene another ministerial conference quickly.
The people in favour of this scenario claim that there was, after all, substantial progress in Seattle, for example, concerning questions of market access, the promotion of trade or services.
From this point of view, the subjects which were not successfully concluded in Seattle, such as agriculture, anti-dumping and fundamental social standards, should now be tackled quickly.
The President of the United States has just declared that the round may be quickly recommenced.
The bilateral Summit at which we are to meet this week will afford us the opportunity to check whether this is a sign of flexibility or just a repetition of the well-known American positions which favour a round limited to market access.
The second scenario is rather more gloomy.
It takes account of the hypothesis which says that the United States will not, in any event, make any moves during an election campaign.
If that should prove true, there would be no progress before the year 2001.
The implications of this scenario are worrying ones.
Not only would we lose precious time, but that would also mean that the inability of a single partner to move would be enough to paralyse the entire multilateral system.
There is a third scenario, one I would call an interim scenario.
If we do not wish to wait for 18 months before resuming negotiations, let us try as of now to move things forward step by step.
An interim package might make it possible to restore confidence in the system and to create conditions favourable to the launch of a new round as soon as possible.
It would therefore be necessary to continue the preparations in progress at Geneva, particularly our process of alliance moving towards broader negotiations.
In this context, the following steps could be envisaged.
Firstly, institutional reform of the WTO.
Well before Seattle, we had submitted detailed proposals on the transparency of WTO activities.
We must go further and determine precisely the causes of the practical problems which slowed down the process in Seattle, and then propose some practical solutions which are centred on the efficiency-transparency axis.
As regards transparency, it is clear that decision making and negotiations must be legitimised in the clearest and most consistent manner.
As regards efficiency, the organisation of work, the procedures, the bodies, and the ministerial conferences must be reviewed with a view to obtaining practical results.
One of the suggestions put forward by the Members of the European Parliament present at Seattle and reiterated last week by a number of Member States was to convene a parliamentary assembly.
This idea appeals to me, since it would make it possible to strengthen democratic control over work within the WTO.
The third crucial element is developing countries.
These are among the countries most disappointed and most affected by the lack of results.
Restarting the process leading to a new round must by necessity represent substantial progress for them, if we wish to obtain their support.
One of the ways to obtain this support would be to maintain our offer to the least advanced countries and to examine together the coordination between the action of the WTO and that of other international institutions in order to ensure that trade liberalisation results in sustainable development for all developing countries, beginning with the very poorest peoples.
These interim steps which I have just outlined would enable us to keep the process alive and to be ready, when the time comes, to resume work for a complete round.
We must therefore combine two approaches.
Firstly, regarding the content, in striving to form alliances and to retain support in favour of a broad approach to the round, and secondly, on the form, the institutional plan and the procedures, in order to set in place all we shall need throughout future negotiations.
This is the direction we will work in, if the Council and Parliament are in agreement.
(Loud applause)
Mr President, Commissioner, no result is better than a bad result.
That is the conclusion which we too believe should be drawn from the unsuccessful negotiations in Seattle.
May I thank you, Commissioner Lamy, and the entire Commission Delegation for being so well prepared and for leading the negotiations so skilfully.
By taking such a dynamic lead - in close cooperation with the European Parliament Delegation - the Commission showed, with its comprehensive negotiating strategy, that it had set the course for a possible success.
The poor level of preparation on the part of the WTO, but also the tactics of the United States and other countries, did not, however, permit a successful conclusion.
It is with satisfaction that we also not only take note of your support - which you have just reiterated - for the WTO parliamentary assembly which we have called for, but also express the hope that you will give us practical support as far as those responsible in the WTO are concerned in our efforts to make this a reality.
In this process, cooperation between the European Union, North America, Mercosur, ASEAN and the ACP countries should allow this parliamentary assembly to be organised effectively, with the regional groupings able to play an important role in the interests of greater efficacy.
Now, what needs to be done in the months, and perhaps in the year, ahead?
We too believe that we need to keep the global negotiating strategy and consolidate it further in the coming months.
We need to open and pursue an active dialogue with those countries, including the newly industrialised and developing countries, whose positions still diverge widely from ours.
Our chances of winning over these countries should be all the greater if we remain consistent.
The focus here should be on the following core areas of trade in goods and services: further reductions in tariffs and the gradual elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade; investment; competition and services; intellectual property; public procurement and e-commerce.
They are essential components of further trade liberalisation and will benefit most of our negotiating partners.
In addition, reform of the WTO is urgent and imperative.
Secondly, in this process, European environmental and health policies, minimum social standards and development policy should retain their status.
Thirdly, at the forthcoming negotiations on agriculture, emphasis should be placed on the multifunctional reasons for our European model of agriculture - the further development of rural areas, the provision of high-quality agricultural products and the environment - with reference being made also to Article 20 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.
In the negotiations with China, which are now beginning, we should concentrate on our own interests, which are in part also contrary to those of the United States.
Reducing the high Chinese peak tariffs, protecting intellectual property and facilitating investment are the most important points here.
Increased market access for the least developed countries - and this is something which we need to consider together - should in any case be achieved very soon as part of the negotiations on the new ACP convention, although I do not know whether this will work on a unilateral basis.
These countries should be granted waivers of between eight and ten years to allow them to adopt the comprehensive WTO body of legislation slowly and gradually, without neglecting their programme of sustainable development.
Mr President, Commissioner, we have listened closely to your intervention on the Seattle Conference and we appreciate your adherence to the debate, to the commitments that you made here, specifically in the November part-session in which this issue was discussed.
It is nevertheless true that, as you yourself pointed out, no agreement was reached in Seattle, and the problems remain.
They remain, and for us Socialists, the failure is not just that no agreement was reached. The failure can be seen in the fact that following the Uruguay Round, the volume of trade in the context of this agreement has increased but unfortunately, so has the gap between developed and developing countries.
For those who see trade as an instrument for making society more harmonious and prosperous, as we Socialists do, this situation can only be of grave concern.
This is why our points of view are still valid in relation to the content, the strategy and the nature of the agreement.
It is worth stating once again that where the content is concerned, we are still fighting for environmental issues, for consumer protection, for social and human rights, for cultural diversity and for the multifunctional role of agriculture.
This is not with a view to indulging in a pretty protectionist strategy where the markets are concerned, but with a view to guaranteeing the kind of global society that we can now glimpse.
In terms of strategy, we would like to see the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament combine their efforts and unite in the same direction.
I also think it important, as your words imply, that we should not be totally dependent on the United States and that we are able to find new partnerships, not only in terms of trade with other regional blocs and with other world trading powers.
Thirdly, in relation to the nature of the agreement: it is true that we all wanted an agreement, but failure to reach one is better than an agreement which will have an unsatisfactory outcome.
This is why we are once again arguing for an overall agreement and not sectoral agreements, which is what the United States is once again seeking.
We feel that the market is not a solution to all problems but neither is it the source of all evil.
The market is essential to wealth creation and it is with this in mind that we want to argue for five more points here:
firstly, a new agenda for Geneva that is not just the "leftovers" from Marrakech;
secondly, to uphold the European Union' s common strategy of seeking out numerous new partnerships;
thirdly, greater transparency and more legitimacy in the decisions, which is why we support the proposal for a Parliamentary body which would monitor the democratic nature of proceedings;
fourthly, that the European institutions understand why non-governmental organisations should be present in Seattle and specifically that the European Parliament should be able to find fora for discussion, debate and ideas so that we can be spokespeople for this civil community whose concerns are exactly the same as ours.
And finally, Mr President, I would like to end by saying that we support institutional reform that enables developing countries to be given greater consideration in the WTO' s decision-making process.
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Lamy for his interesting and helpful remarks this afternoon and to reiterate on behalf of the ELDR Group our gratitude to him and his staff for the close cooperation which we successfully established in Seattle.
One general remark if I may.
Much has been said since Seattle about the procedural and organisational shortcomings of the WTO.
Whilst all proposals to improve WTO procedures are naturally welcome, there is a danger that we might be embarking on the reinvention of the wheel.
The WTO is an intergovernmental organisation with over 130 members, so it will remain, by definition, a somewhat cumbersome decision-making forum.
That is, unfortunately, the unavoidable nature of the beast.
A concentration on procedural and organisational issues should not blind us to one simple fact: if the political will had existed in Seattle, particularly within the US Administration, the procedural flaws of the system would have been overcome.
Thus our primary task remains a political, not a technical one, namely to rehabilitate the public case for further trade liberalisation, not only for the benefit of European businesses and consumers, but most particularly because open trade offers the only viable long-term solution to poverty in a developing world.
That is why the ELDR Group hopes that the Commission, the Council and this Parliament will embark on a proactive attempt to remake the political case for further trade liberalisation in general and for a new comprehensive round, rather than an intermediate round, in particular.
The EU/US Summit which takes place the day after tomorrow is exactly the right place to start since it is the US which has been found to be most politically wanting in recent weeks and months.
The need for EU political leadership which was amply on display in Seattle in international trade affairs is now more acute than ever.
Whilst to focus on procedural details is essential, no amount of organisational improvements will compensate for the biggest loss at Seattle, a loss of political conviction in the merits of open, multilateral rules-based trade liberalisation.
Mr President, from the outset, I would like first of all to thank the Commission and, more particularly, Commissioner Lamy for the way in which he involved the parliamentary delegation in the work.
I think this is a first, and it certainly proved to be a positive experience for everyone concerned.
There are, nonetheless, differences of opinion.
In particular, I think that the proposal relating to the "biotechnology" working party was not the right one, but it would be truly boring if we always agreed on everything.
Moreover, it is important that we examine the causes of the failure.
Several of these have been mentioned. They seem accurate to me.
I would add one more: I believe that developing countries can no longer accept being treated as they have until now.
Having the representatives of the most industrialised countries meet in a conference room, at the end of the negotiations, while the others wait in the antechamber before having to sign a text prepared in advance seems to me an unacceptable process, and I believe that many of us here would agree with me on that.
Our way of negotiating must therefore be reviewed.
A whole raft of issues to do with the WTO must also be reviewed.
In particular, I think that besides the problems with the decision-making and negotiation mechanisms, the basic principles of the WTO also are in need of a face-lift.
Let us not forget, even so, that it was in the 1940s, after the war, that the first GATT negotiations took place, and that at the time people were still traumatised after the great depression of 1929 and the thirties, and that the priority then was to track down overcautious, dangerous protectionism.
Fifty years on, I feel that priorities have changed.
I believe that this is something which must be reviewed and, above all, the question must be asked as to whether generalised free trade is compatible with States, the European Union in particular, having the opportunity to respond to other requirements, primarily, in my opinion, the requirement for sustainable development throughout the world.
A number of WTO mechanisms and principles run counter to this objective of sustainable development both socially and ecologically.
I believe we must have the courage - now that we have time for this - to analyse these mechanisms seriously and to make proposals, establishing dialogue, as a priority, with developing countries.
My impression is that the European Union is very fond of dialogue with the USA.
I am not opposed to that, of course, but I believe that favouring dialogue with the USA is also likely to backfire on us when, at a later date, we have to discuss matters with developing countries, particularly ACP countries.
I think this must be reviewed, and the legitimate claims of these countries must be taken more seriously.
Mr President, following the Seattle failure, we still have all the same problems, but nothing is the same as it was before.
Our first task, therefore, is to make a lucid diagnosis of what happened in order to assume our responsibilities in full knowledge of the facts.
I have heard the analysis which Mr Lamy has given, as it were, from inside the institution.
I would like to offer an outsider' s point of view.
In Seattle, I had the opportunity to have discussions lasting many hours with these men and women, the representatives of society, as it were, who came from all four corners of the earth.
I was also able to hold talks with some of the main organisers of this mobilisation of forces.
They naturally gauged the influence and the support they enjoyed throughout the world: they were, therefore, enthusiastic and determined, but in no way violent, populist or nationalistic, as some observers saw fit to caricature them.
They were well informed, thoughtful, adult in their attitude.
They meant to be involved in decisions as responsible citizens, and no longer just treated as passive consumers.
They were not challenging opening up to the world, but the globalisation of a mercantile attitude.
Far from identifying with the champions of their own countries in the world-wide economic war, the different people involved were together censuring the capitalism of the multinationals, the relentless quest for profits, treating the natural world as a commodity, going as far as to patent living things, the levelling of cultures, the entrenchment of inequalities practically everywhere, especially between the North and South.
Their ambition was quite simply to make the modern world more civilised, to make globalisation more human.
"People before benefits" was one of their favourite slogans.
We must listen to them, as Mr Somavia wisely noted, the present Director General of the International Labour Organisation, which four years ago was the moving spirit behind the International Conference in Copenhagen, where all the world' s Heads of State undertook to reduce poverty by half by 2015.
Listening to them would involve changing the WTO radically.
This starts, in my opinion, with the current framework of the WTO, a framework which is not really universal but is truly unequal, as Mr Lannoye very clearly depicted.
It also involves the current tasks of the WTO which set the objective of capturing market shares in precedence to absolutely everything, including the commitments made by the international community as regards social, environmental or health matters, or the development of the south.
Changing the WTO, finally, involves its current mode of operation, which is still based on Summit diplomacy and secrecy at a time when citizens are becoming actively involved in world affairs.
This is why I am arguing, Mr President, in favour of a proper study offering a critical analysis of past experience, followed by the Union taking the offensive in favour of a more democratic organisation, open to society, which is truly universal and which steadfastly overcomes the divide between commercial considerations and the demands of sustainable and socially cohesive development.
This would be one more fine ambition for Europe' s emerging policy on foreign affairs and security.
Mr President, Commissioner, the failure of the Seattle negotiations represents a victory for all those who reject free trade, all those who refuse to reduce the activities of the human race, and the human race itself, to the condition of a saleable commodity.
The Union for a Europe of Nations Group had deplored in this House the lack of preparation for this conference, the lack of an objective assessment of the Uruguay Round, the sly attempt to reintroduce the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in a roundabout way, the objective of fast-track liberalisation, without recognition of the legitimacy of regional preference areas.
The Seattle demonstrators put an end to this sidelong drift.
They stopped a conference prepared by the powerful chiefly for their own benefit and thereby obtained the moratorium which is precisely what my group was asking for.
We are delighted with this, but now we must use this moratorium to prepare ourselves better for future negotiations.
Firstly, as regards procedure, we want careful thought to be given, in the European Parliament and in the Council, to the democratic supervision of the Commission during such international negotiations.
We cannot forget that Mr Lamy, in a Commission statement not approved by the Council, proposed a working party on biotechnology, risking bringing this subject back into the negotiations as the Americans wanted, even though we rejected this.
The Commission has explained just now, and also last week before the European Parliament' s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, that he hoped to receive far more in return for making this concession.
This statement is not at all satisfactory to us and, in our opinion, he is just making things worse for himself, since, in our opinion, this point specifically was not at all open to negotiation.
Fortunately, in the end, Seattle was a failure, because otherwise who knows where they were going to take us.
As was ever its wont, the Commission thinks itself above the Council and seeks to do just what it wishes.
This must be changed.
It must be changed all the more in consideration of the fact that the Commission had obtained a broad mandate for negotiation on the agenda, including matters such as investment and services, which are normally the prerogative of Member States.
We consider that this point, too, is one that must be clarified properly in future, since it could have drifted towards a final negotiating mandate which would have reduced or eliminated the responsibilities of national parliaments.
In future negotiations, on the contrary much stricter parallel control by national parliaments and by the European Parliament must be instituted.
Supervision of the Commission must thus be reformed, but we must also take advantage of this time which has been given us to draw up a proper objective assessment of the Uruguay Round.
Above all, in future, the running of the World Trade Organisation must be reviewed in order to establish the fundamental principle that only peoples have sovereign power, that they are free to choose their lifestyle and to express their preferences, and, finally, that multinationals must adapt in order to comply with the will of the people, rather than the people adapting to comply with the needs of the multinationals.
Mr President, if the failure of Seattle really were to lead to a standstill or slow down the trade integration processes at global level, it would be a disaster.
It would be a disaster for the producers and the workers of the weakest countries, and not, as was said, for the multinationals, which would find, as they have always found, ways to penetrate industry and trade more deeply anywhere in the world.
It would be a disaster for the consumers in European countries, in particular for the weakest consumers who would be frustrated in their hope to have a wide choice of products from all over the world at lower prices than those found in the national markets.
It would be a disaster for the environment, as the poorest countries, whose products would be denied access to European and American markets, would continue to exploit natural resources.
Seattle did not fail, Commissioner, because of the WTO' s inadequacy or the United States' electoral campaign, although this did contribute to the failure. Seattle failed because the political desire of the main countries was to slow down, instead of accelerating international trade.
Europe, Commissioner, added its problems, thus overburdening the agenda with subjects unrelated to the specific field of international trade and providing an excuse for those who stood to benefit from applying pressure to slow down the process of integrating world markets, but certainly these benefits - I repeat - did not extend to European consumers or Indian or Pakistani workers.
Mr President, Commissioner, I think that Europe, with its age-old tradition of the market economy, free trade and economic freedom - freedom which does not need to be qualified by adjectives - must assert that the objective of integrating the markets and of free trade is a goal in itself, which we must attain for ourselves and all the other countries.
Let us leave the other matters to the competent bodies!
Mr President, I do not agree with those speakers who said that the Commission as our negotiator did us wrong so far as the European Union was concerned.
On the contrary, I would support those who have said that not only did they have a coherent delegation to lead but that the practical arrangements for us - the largest Parliamentary delegation which had ever attended international trade talks - were to our mutual benefit.
It looks as though we will have to wait for the new millennium now for a Millennium Round.
Was it a victory, a disaster or an unexpected welcome break in Seattle? People are right to say that the procedure should have been better.
We need better decision making.
We need quicker dispute settlement procedures.
However, it was the substance which was the problem: an overload of a traditional trade agenda with non-trade issues.
Globalisation has led to a number of issues which touch the sovereignty of Nation States being put on a trade agenda.
President Clinton's call for the enforcement of trade labour standards for developing countries and elsewhere in the world was the death knell of these talks.
But linking these two together - procedure and substance - I welcome the Commissioner's support for a parliamentary body of some kind.
This will not only help the democratic accountability of the WTO, help to provide an on-going interface with non-governmental organisations, but also help the gradual evolution of the non-trade concerns on the agenda.
These are, after all, concerns of elected representatives.
In this respect, it is an unexpected welcome break.
But let us have no illusions.
The US Administration is not going to change its position before the election.
Nevertheless, when we were in Seattle we had excellent talks with US legislators.
I ask the Commission to help us develop our contacts on discussion of specific issues such as agriculture in the intervening period so we can assist this intermediate solution.
I believe they are willing to have dialogue with us on a number of specific issues.
Maybe dialogue between transatlantic legislators can help in this area.
Mr President, I think Members should realise what an excellent negotiator we had in Pascal Lamy.
Of those taking part in the discussions, he was far and away the most skilful and appeared to show the most stamina.
That is important to recognise.
The discussions in Seattle were perhaps more complex than could have been anticipated: they were certainly over-ambitious, and that should have been anticipated.
There was a quite absurd concentration of time limits, particularly since some of the time was lost because of extraneous events.
There was a hysterical press interest, not in what was happening in the discussions, but in what was happening on the streets, which was largely due to complete clumsiness by the local police.
There was a complexity because of the sheer number of participants, not only from the countries concerned, but from NGOs, from lobbyists, from national government delegations and from others.
The issues themselves were complex.
This was not a game of poker, it was a complex game of chess with completely justifiable but contradictory claims taking the stage.
The European Union was, in fact, very well placed.
Over the years of our existence we have managed to put in place environmental and social rules alongside trade rules.
It can be done in international discussions.
It is not easy but it is essential and we are well placed because we have, to a limited extent, managed that.
We were well placed because of our links with the ACP countries, although there was an issue over their waiver which clouded the discussions, and because we have always worked well with NGOs.
We were well placed in having a large parliamentary delegation.
I am pleased that our socialist amendment calling for a parliamentary assembly was taken up world-wide.
The issue of agriculture: The United States and other countries refused to understand, even though it is a very simple notion, the multifunctional reasons for our common agricultural policy.
They refuse to admit that they subsidise their agriculture in a much less transparent way than we do.
As far as environmental issues were concerned, these are not and should not be simply concerns of rich countries, but they were portrayed as such and there is a great deal of work to do in bringing those issues to a State where they are not thought of as protectionism.
Mr Lamy says that the biotech working group was fact-finding, but the widespread perception was that it would interfere with the setting-up of the bio-safety protocol and colleagues will say more about that.
Animal welfare was perceived by poor countries as a rich person's interest which, to some of them, was almost obscene where we are confronted with starving people.
That is something again we will have to work on and similarly with core labour standards.
It is important that the WTO is restored in a reformed way.
The alternative is the United States making bilateral agreements from a position of strength with the poorer countries of the world.
That is not what we want.
We, in the Parliament, must follow this issue along with Mr Lamy and other Commissioners until we get something that is appropriate to the age which we are moving into.
Mr President, Commissioner, the EU did a good job in Seattle. The cooperation was good, which I am grateful for.
The problem is that the WTO basically lacks popular support, and the developing countries, even if they are present there, feel left out.
I therefore believe that it was very important indeed that we agreed to demand greater openness and to make room for popular influence on decision making by means of a parliamentary forum.
When it comes to the failure in Seattle, I do not however believe that we should "cry over spilled milk" , as we say in Sweden. Instead, we should use the time to do some forward thinking.
We have been made aware of the problems and we have also, I think, glimpsed certain possibilities.
Unlike Mrs McNally, I perceive, rather, a slight opening-up on the part of the Americans, not least in the sphere of agriculture.
America has trebled the amount of its agricultural subsidies since the last farm bill was adopted and, although the multifunctional reasons for our policy may not be recognised, large parts of its content nonetheless are in fact acknowledged, which I think is positive.
As a relatively liberal, perhaps very liberal, European politician where agriculture is concerned, I should like to say that we ourselves within the EU ought to reflect upon how we can change the CAP, Agenda 2000 and what follows Agenda 2000 and consider how we might get rid of subsidies which drive down the level of trade.
It would be good to discuss this with the developing countries because these are very dependent indeed upon exporting raw materials.
It would also be good for other exporters.
In fact, an enlarged EU, which we hope we are making great strides towards, will also become more and more dependent precisely upon being able to export agricultural products.
It is in specifically this situation that I think that the present talks and the reflections we can engage in will be extremely useful.
I believe there are good opportunities for making further progress.
Mr President, Commissioner Lamy and others have spoken of the Seattle meeting as a failure but I still believe that, if the EU and the US in particular learn the lessons of the past few weeks, the meeting in Seattle could still go down in history not as a failure but as the moment when world leaders finally realised that they need a radically different approach to international trade.
First, they must learn that rich countries can no longer get something for nothing.
If they want rightly to link social and environmental concerns with trade they will need both to prove that their motives are not protectionist and to deliver substantial gains for developing countries in return.
Those gains could include tariff-free access for all goods from the poorest countries, the abolition of tariff peaks and agreements to stop export dumping.
Second, it is clear that trade deals can no longer be secretly stitched up between the more powerful WTO members.
Developing countries have shown a new determination to resist such marginalisation.
The playing field between the richer and poorer countries is anything but level.
If you look at negotiating capacity alone, the EU and the US were present in Seattle with whole armies of lawyers and advisors.
The poorer countries were there with very few.
I have also heard - and I would be grateful to know if this is true - that 30 countries, members of the WTO, could not even afford to be at the meeting to negotiate.
The WTO process needs to be made far more democratic and transparent.
I believe that we need a forum to discuss proposals for radical reform with the environmental and development groups who have been working on this subject for a great many years.
There is no need to re-invent the wheel.
There are good proposals out there.
We need to learn from them.
Finally, WTO members must at last listen to the 1 200 non-governmental organisations from nearly 100 countries who signed a declaration demanding no further trade liberalisation until the social and environmental impacts of existing liberalisation have been addressed and the problems put right.
The stalling of the talks in Seattle gives us an opportunity to do just that.
Mr President, Commissioner, the most important issue of the negotiations of the Millennium Round were the grass-root reactions.
It was the first time that protests on that scale have been held in the United States since the war in Vietnam.
The awakening of people' s movements all over the world proves the objection to the principles of the World Trade Organisation.
Indeed, trade liberalisation, the abolishment of subsidies, free investments, the commercialisation of services, even education, health and cultural services, serve the major interests of the monopolies to increase their profit margins. However, it is not at all appealing for the workers or the people.
Even the much-publicised complete abolition of tariffs on products from poorer countries will precipitate the pillaging of wealth of those countries, while on the other hand it will deluge the market with cheap products replacing corresponding products from countries such as mine.
The World Trade Organisation was not formed to protect the interests of workers and the people, the proof of which lies in the fact that the main decision-makers are the few wealthy countries and in the widening of inequalities between rich and poor countries, and also within those countries.
The Commissioner made no mention of the grass-root reactions.
Obviously, he wants to downplay them, and tell us that whatever the people do, the American, European, Japanese monopolies and the rest will impose their will and overcome these reactions together.
We are certain that the grass-root reactions all over the world were probably the sole cause of the failure of these talks not just because the demonstrators thwarted the formal opening ceremony but because they created a climate which cannot be ignored even by those who think they control the world.
And we have only just begun.
Mr President, as has already been said, unfortunately, overall, Seattle was not a great success: the only real participants were the protestors, who, while their demands were supported by many extremely valid grounds, wrongly thought that the failure of the Summit itself would constitute a victory, a solution to the serious problems in question.
In reality, the problems and contradictions of the global economy are still there, unresolved and still relevant: doubts about genetically modified organisms, child labour, the negative social effects of unbridled, unregulated globalisation.
But that is not all: perhaps these protests served as a pretext for the official participants at Seattle - those with the right to sit round the conference table - not to have to fully assume the political responsibility to negotiate, which, although certainly very difficult is absolutely necessary, precisely as regards social rights and safeguarding our citizens' health. These are negotiations that cannot wait any longer.
Of course, we are dealing with a complicated process, but Europe has to be equal to the challenges facing it.
Talks within the World Trade Organisation have to start up again, and Europe has to be very aware of its role, a role of balance and responsibility, with a view to globalisation with a human aspect that is open and welcomes changes and acceleration in the economy but is also able to safeguard equal employment opportunities, the environment and health.
Finally, Europe must not forget to defend our own specific differences, not just economic but also cultural and social, because globalisation that leads to uniformity, levelling out and exploitation must have no place at all in the European growth model.
Mr President, the Seattle negotiations enabled us to see a small political opening up of the European Union' s positions on agriculture as is the case with environmental concerns, food safety and the development of rural communities.
This is nevertheless very little when compared with the very negative aspects that our trade partners are trying to impose on us in the text of the Agenda.
I am referring to two points in particular:
The first was an obsessive reference to the substantial reduction of internal aid for agriculture without taking the slightest account of the diversity of different countries' structures of production and without taking account of an objective and consistent classification of the different types of subsidies allocated to agriculture.
Secondly, and most importantly, the rejection of the idea of multifunctionality which is the main pillar of the European farm model and the basis for upholding the principle of the specific nature of agriculture.
In fact, if this deliberate reference is not featured, it means that agriculture will be treated as a normal economic activity, whilst there is ever greater pressure from our competitors to end any kind of aid obtained and I stress "any kind" .
Now we all know that without special treatment for agriculture we will not be able to guarantee a minimum of Community preference nor as a result, the primary producing role of agriculture.
If the producing role of agriculture comes to an end, then all its other functions or multifunctions will end with it.
This is why it was a good thing that no agreement was reached in Seattle.
In fact, the agreement that was envisaged was very damaging for agriculture and would have left us at the outset in a weakened negotiating position for the future whereas we are now in a stronger position than we ever have been to make an offensive stand in the new Round.
I would like to make two final comments.
Firstly, that it is crucial that the Commission and the Council establish an initiative with developing countries in order to make them our allies.
Secondly, that a joint project with the United States would be extremely useful - as James Elles pointed out - in order to clarify the positions of both parties and to be able then to encourage future understanding.
Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, you rightly referred to many points and I am grateful to my fellow Members for saying how indebted we are to you for the way in which you led the negotiations in Seattle.
This was done with consummate elegance, and I must say that I was present at many press conferences and I also went to the events organised by the non-governmental organisations.
You also explained the European Union's negotiating position and its strategy with the utmost clarity.
I believe that you made it clear that the European Union is in a position not only to take on a leading role in this and the forthcoming world trade round - and that we do not come here as poker players to secure our own interests - but also that we are prepared to bring the other countries, in particular the developing and least developed countries, on board with us.
This message has been heard, and I am proud to have been part of the delegation in Seattle.
But we should not labour under any illusions.
Two things have become apparent: one is that this accumulation of interests is something that we will continue to see in international negotiations in the future, and I should like to endorse the position of many leading economists who are saying that this was just the beginning.
We will see that this conflict of national and regional interests will be even more pronounced in the future than it has been in the past.
Here, of course, it will be important for us not to line up against each other in blocs - the European Union against the United States, the European Union/the United States against the developing countries, or perhaps also some of the developing countries against others - as we have seen in Seattle and also in other contexts.
In the future, it will be much more important for us to adopt a more sophisticated approach with greater emphasis on preparation, so as to make it clear which interests we actually stand for together in these world trade rounds and why we need them: namely to bring globalisation under control, taming the rank growth which would otherwise proliferate without a world trade round, in order to implement a sound strategy to overcome global problems.
The second phenomenon which we saw - and here too, I do not believe that we should have any illusions - was that the interest which civil society showed in the proceedings in Seattle was not only an interest in the world trade round, but also a demonstration against all those things which people do not like.
This started with the healthcare system in the United States.
I spoke to many people on the streets.
The issues ranged from future Chinese participation in the world trade round to the policies pursued in Cuba, and there were many other issues besides.
Increasingly, politicians are being asked to explain - and to do so in greater depth than they have in the past - what the World Trade Organisation actually does and why it exists.
Of course, it also needs to be reformed and to be made more transparent, but it must also be explained better.
Here I am particularly glad that parliamentarians have now been included; other speakers have referred to this.
The role which will fall to us, as a parliamentary forum, in the world trade round will not be easy.
However, I believe that this is the only way to introduce greater democracy into such a complex bureaucratic machine.
Mr President, the official European Union delegation to Seattle defended the principle of a broad agenda.
It received a mandate to include an extensive range of new areas in the Millennium Round, but in fact it intended to grant the WTO an increased range of responsibilities and powers.
As far as we are concerned, it is not a matter of organising the continued extension of free trade better, but of prioritising the defence of social and environmental rights and of enabling all peoples to be self-determining and to decide their own future.
The delegation would also have us believe that they fought for the countries of the south.
But they did nothing of the sort.
As regards agriculture, the European Union defended only European agro-industry exporters against their North American competitors and the exporters of the Cairns Group.
They did not stand up for the demands of European family-run or group-operated farms or the demands of the farmers of the south.
The demonstrators from all over the world who hindered the Seattle conference represent the first counterattack by the world against the dictatorship of markets and financial profits.
They represent a hope for millions of workers, unemployed people and landless agricultural workers, and for all the victims of this capitalist world order that the WTO wishes to force on us.
The interests of the peoples of the world are antithetical to the development of liberalism.
Mr President, in Seattle we experienced the failure of the WTO Conference, but not of the philosophy behind it.
What do we learn from this? Firstly, it makes little sense to meet in countries where an election campaign is underway.
Anyone for whom public opinion at home is more important than international agreements should not be surprised when their guests take an invitation as an invitation to go home.
Secondly, it makes little sense to reduce world trade to the concept of fair; the two concepts of fair and socially balanced need to go hand-in-hand.
The international community is tired of protectionism, barriers to trade and being dictated to by a few global players.
Thirdly, on the other hand it does make sense, in spite of all the differences between delegations, to speak with one voice.
I very much welcome the way in which the Commission conducted itself.
Your morning briefings to us Members of Parliament, Commissioner Lamy, were characterised by openness and a willingness to take account of our views.
The result was that this time the EU sat not in the sin bin, but in the mediator's chair.
Fourthly, it makes sense to work more closely with the NGOs.
However, at their day-long symposium in Seattle they hardly had a chance to speak.
I was forced to realise that only a few people are aware of how close Europe is to them.
Whether it was protecting the environment, animals, health or consumers that was being discussed, the dialogue was broken off before it had had chance to start.
The demonstrations paralysed the conference.
What began as a good-natured event degenerated into a state of siege with a high degree of aggression and violence.
Fifthly, it makes sense also to deal with controversial matters.
The taboos of today can be workable compromises tomorrow.
Admittedly the subjects have to be handled sensitively.
The American President's statement that if labour standards were not implemented then sanctions might be imposed was far from helpful.
This reached us conference participants not by chance but by design.
The EU will, however, be capable of winning a majority on the proposal for a permanent WTO and ILO forum, on questions of fundamental rights and on rules of the social market economy.
Despite Seattle, therefore, there are definitely grounds for hope.
Mr President, in Seattle it was not possible to dispel the underlying disquiet with the world trade situation.
Many non-governmental organisations spoke of a victory being won in Seattle.
Many of the ACP countries spoke of a victory being won for their cause in Seattle.
If we are talking in terms of victories then I have only one thing to say: nothing was won in Seattle except time, and as yet it is completely unclear to us how little time we have to devote to this matter.
The issue which we need to address is the underlying disquiet.
The fact that worldwide the environmental and social situation has not taken a turn for the better concerns us.
At the weekend, I attended a symposium with non-governmental organisations, with farmers' representatives from Honduras and employees' representatives from South America.
All of them - all - were extremely unhappy with the situation.
This did serve to show me, however, that what we actually wanted out of this world trade round was not at all clear and transparent either.
Hand on our heart then, if we glance through the newspapers, we realise that even within the European Union our concerns - whether related to environmental policy, social policy or the core labour standards - were portrayed as protectionist; even at home in the European Union we were not able to communicate our concerns, let alone within the group of States of the World Trade Organisation. One lesson which we should draw from this would be to find answers to the following questions: how do we integrate parliamentarianism with the concerns of the non-governmental organisations?
How do we handle the new sensitive situation in which people are starting to fight back? How do we make this work?
What platform can we offer for it? I believe that we have laid the best foundation for successful future cooperation within the European Union, within the European Parliament.
Mr President, Commissioner, I am not going to reiterate what has already been said.
The WTO is a failure in its present form because the WTO is no longer appropriate nor is it transparent.
The first lesson we must draw is in fact the one the NGOs were demanding, i.e. there must be fair trade, not free trade, and in this respect, we must realise that nowadays no international organisation can escape the watchful eye of the citizen and that this is to be expected.
The next deadline is already quite close.
Geneva must not be allowed to go stealthily by.
We, of course, have Marrakech, we, of course, have no obligation to achieve results, but we must remain vigilant in order to ensure that separate agreements on agriculture and services do not allow the things we shut the door on to get in by the back door.
One of the lessons of Seattle, and Commissioner Lamy started to draw conclusions, is that we must find allies.
We do, admittedly, already have a few allies.
The most important ones will no doubt be, as Paul Lannoye emphasised, the ACP countries.
To take European agriculture as an example, it cannot go on saying that it is doing fine, that it is multifunctional, that it is operating in a positive way, that it will henceforth protect its consumers, while at the same time maintaining a selfish attitude with regard to the countries of the south.
In order to be heard, we must find the resources to enable these poorest countries to also have quality food, and quality products.
The whole world today has the right to show solidarity and to have the resources to live better, to get out of this state of international self-centredness.
Mr President, Commissioner - or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? - the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations.
Europe is the biggest exporter in the world - around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe.
For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade.
It is said that without trade there is no prosperity.
To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking.
At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth.
One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age.
Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology.
I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector; we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context.
We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging.
We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us.
Some organisational aspects also need to be contended.
We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side.
The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level.
In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 - the seven most important importing and exporting countries - so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision.
We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee.
Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader.
Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!
Mr President, I shall not now echo the compliments paid to Mr Lamy or he will start to blush.
I take it that he is aware that this House is also grateful for the part he played and for the way in which he involved the European Parliament delegation.
With your permission, I shall comment on the consequences of the failure of this ministerial conference.
What conclusions should we draw in terms of continuing the work? One thing is certain: whether there is another ministerial conference now or whether work has to proceed on a step-by-step basis, never again can another working round be allowed to open without there being a clear agenda which has been put to the vote and agreed.
This must surely be one of the consequences.
If we are now to continue the work solely on the basis of Article 20 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, what then are our responsibilities under the agreement? I am convinced that they are perfectly obvious: Article 20 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture contains the condition that, amongst other things, non-trade-related concerns are also to be taken into account.
For this reason, at every step, at all the negotiations, the precautionary principle must be constantly reiterated; it must be put repeatedly on the agenda as if this were a Tibetan prayer wheel.
Each of the speakers here keeps repeating the words: consumer protection, precautionary principle and environment policy, but then we also need to make this clear.
We also need to make it clear that environmental standards and food safety are often hotly disputed here, that it is only with difficulty that we achieve this here in the European Union, that the legislation is controversial, and that if we have adopted it, it is because of our responsibility to the people of the European Union - to whom we are accountable as elected parliamentarians - and not for reasons of tactical protectionism.
We also need to make this clear.
From now on, it must go without saying that extending individual parts of the WTO rules or overhauling them completely can only be possible once this institution is at long last democratic, once it is transparent and once it is less authoritarian.
Perhaps the failure of this first WTO Ministerial Conference is also a huge blessing in disguise because the arrogance and lack of democracy has been exposed and now we have an opportunity to change it.
The time is right to do so!
Mr President, we should not be too worried about allowing a Commissioner to bask in the glory of congratulations from the European Parliament.
It is a rare occasion so he should enjoy it.
As he suggests, we should be looking forward rather than backward now.
We should welcome talk of modernisation and reform of the WTO and the recognition that we need seriously to modify the perception that is held elsewhere of the protectionist stance of the industrialised world.
A key objective for us must be for all 135 members of the WTO to have a part to play in that process of reform as well as what goes on afterwards.
I can confirm that 30 members did not have the capacity or the ability to go to Seattle.
My abiding memory was of the sense of exclusion felt by developing countries.
They all remained adamant throughout that there was a great deal of post-Uruguay Round unfinished business - on textiles and agriculture in particular - that needed to be addressed.
I was heartened by the fact that three-quarters of the WTO members could no longer be ignored.
It was they who were able to call a halt.
Should we be surprised that they wanted to do that on the grounds that they have only 0.4% of the share of world trade? There are choices: either we allow globalisation to roll on without guidance or we rein it in to ensure that it brings benefits to all.
We have an opportunity to address the concerns raised in Seattle.
That means identifying the problems and then acting.
Of course, we did have the difficulty of the 135-page draft you took with you to Seattle, upon which you have no broad agreement, so it was hardly surprising that difficulties were encountered.
At the end of the week, the developing countries were simply not prepared to accept a "done deal" made in secret rooms by the big players.
Of course we recognise the fact that we need a rules-based system to regulate world trade but let us see more openness, let us see more and better ways of achieving and building global consensus.
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank all the men and women among you who gave me their support both during the Conference and today.
I am particularly appreciative of this, since I think it is a method and style of working rather than personality which is involved, and this method of working is one that will prove useful in future.
In any case, the conclusion that I draw is that this is the way forward.
I shall now make a few comments about the essential points.
Firstly, as many of you have said, this failure at Seattle was probably a source of disappointment primarily to developing countries.
If we acknowledge this fact, which I believe is now proven, looking back on it a week later, it is thus once the liberalisation of trade has been decided, managed and brought under control, that developing countries see the value it has for them, and no doubt they consider it better for them than the status quo with the development of bilateral relations which do not work in their favour.
I believe that this is worth thinking about for the future, and is certainly something that we need to think about.
My second comment concerns the institutional business of the WTO.
I do not belong to that group of people which believes that this is where the main problem lies.
I do, however, believe that part of the problem lies here.
We should not be reinventing the wheel, admittedly, but what use is it if it has stopped turning properly? Let us at least take action to get the wheel turning again, or to adjust the load it is carrying.
I think that this is the main thing, while taking account, as I believe the Commission is doing, of the extreme difficulties in getting 135 contractual parties to agree on an institutional system which is different to that which currently exists.
A third comment on the environment.
I have listened to and taken in what you have said.
Let us simply be aware that, in this area, we have considerable ambitions in relation to those of the other partners around the WTO table.
Everyone can understand why developing countries may have a less ambitious environmental agenda to our own.
But that the United States should have an environmental agenda less ambitious than our own, as is the case, is something which definitely presents us with a more difficult problem, for if neither developing countries nor the Americans agree with our agenda, we shall then have great difficulty in moving it forward.
I believe that is something worth thinking about.
I stick to our credo, the Council conclusions, and the mandate which I was given.
We must still, however, be quite aware that all this will not prove easy and that it will be necessary, at some point, either to be more convincing or to be more active.
I now come to my fourth and penultimate comment.
Like many of you, I believe that it is now towards developing countries that we should direct our efforts to convince and our ability to form alliances.
This will require persuasion, political effort and the presentation of arguments. Without doubt, it will also require some additional work which we shall have to think about.
I am not currently in a position right to outline this support, but it is certain that these additional efforts will have to involve the increased opening up of our markets to developing countries.
I believe it is not worth discussing this at length until the details are clearer, but I know too that as soon as the details do become clearer then enormous problems will arise.
We shall have to think about this, and, when the time comes, present our proposals on the subject to the Council and Parliament.
In concluding, I shall mention the issue of transparency.
Yes, Seattle was a transparent event.
One might reflect at length as to whether the fact that intense media activity, as there was at Seattle, always coincides with active transparency.
Personally, I must tell you that just occasionally I feel some doubt and a little unease as to this coincidence, which we all too often try to perceive, between a massive media presence and active transparency.
Leaving that aside, in Seattle the WTO was, nonetheless, subjected to an ordeal of transparency for which it was obviously not prepared.
If that was the case then so much the better.
What we have to say regarding liberalisation, globalisation, our own concept of it and the question as to whether it is good or bad for the citizens you represent and to whom we are accountable, well, that is so much the better.
This debate is one that I am happy to see take place in public.
I think, as a number of you have said, that Europe has a stake in this debate since, as far as it is concerned and in this area, it is accustomed to it: why not share the benefit of our experience?
(Loud applause)
Thank you very much, Commissioner Lamy.
I have received six motions for resolutions, pursuant to Rule 37(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 p.m.
The debate is closed.
Annual Report of the Court of Auditors
The next item is the presentation of the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to present today the European Court of Auditors' Annual Report concerning the financial year 1998, one of the fundamental elements of the discharge procedure.
The discharge of the 1998 accounts is undertaken in a context very different to previous years.
Our institutions have been both protagonists in and witnesses of major events on the European scene.
For the first time the European Commission has resigned during its term of office and for the first time management and control of European funds have been put in the forefront of political attention.
The European Union suffers from a fundamental problem inherent to a period of growth.
The Commission structure has not evolved in parallel with the increasing variety of Community policies and funds that have to be implemented.
As the reports of the Committee of Independent Experts clearly state: the Commission's organisation, staffing and procedures have become obsolete and are unable to deliver the policies with the expected high degree of efficiency and accountability.
This failure brings about financial management and control weaknesses which have persistently been reported by the Court of Auditors.
I believe that there is a general consensus on these observations.
The crucial corollary is, in my view, that all European institutions and the Member States share responsibility for this situation and consequently that we have to work together to improve it.
To this effect and as part of its contribution, the Court addressed a letter to President Prodi, when he was still President-elect Prodi, on 15 July this year, drawing his attention to those basic improvements that we, the members of the Court of Auditors, considered to be the most essential.
They involve making policy performance possible to assess, enhancing the structures of control, drawing up simple and more consistent financial and accounting regulations and finally managing staff more efficiently.
The special reports and opinions adopted by the Court during the year in the Court's 1998 Annual Report submitted to Parliament provide additional evidence to corroborate this analysis.
As you have seen, the report that you now have in your hands contains the statement of assurance for the 1998 financial year.
In response to the requests of this Parliament, the Court has expanded its work with the statement of assurance.
It now provides additional information per sector of revenue and expenditure in each chapter, which should make the report more useful in assessing the particular situation in each field.
The global conclusions in the 1998 statement of assurance do not differ substantially from previous years.
Firstly, the court is of the opinion that, overall, the accounts reliably reflect the Community's revenue and expenditure and the financial situation at the end of the year, subject, however, to certain qualifications concerning the omissions of debts and potential liabilities, overstatements of outstanding commitments and the presentation of advances as definite payments.
Secondly, the Court declines to give a positive statement on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the Commission's payments.
The audit revealed a material incidence of error which affected the amount of payments made or the eligibility of the transactions financed.
The audit also showed other failures to comply with regulations.
Although these do not have a direct effect on the amounts of the transactions they often indicate a failure to apply control procedures properly.
The Court found a significant number of errors when checking the final beneficiaries of subsidies.
This demonstrates that, not only the Commission, but also the Member States still have problems in the administration and control of the Community programmes.
The Commission and the Member States are now embarked on a reform of the major areas of expenditure, notably agriculture, structural funds and the PHARE programme.
Real progress will depend on far-reaching fundamental changes in the Member States' system also and in many cases, in Council regulations.
The observations concerning the activities of the sixth, seventh and eighth European Development Funds are, in this Annual Report, presently separated along with a separate statement of assurance.
The audit revealed failures to comply with the EDF regulations and errors affecting the amount of payments made.
Apart from these points, however, the Court is of the opinion that the European Development Fund accounts are reliable and the underlying transactions legal and regular.
Under these circumstances, in most of the areas of expenditure the Court has identified Community policies and programmes that are imprecisely designed and cannot be properly evaluated.
Under these circumstances, actions cannot be correctly planned and the resources needed cannot be accurately estimated.
That leads to poor results and the squandering of funds.
For example, in our Special Report No 2/99 on the effects of the Community agricultural policy reform in the cereal sector, the Court observed that there is no evidence that the reduction of institutional prices has brought significant benefits to the consumer nor that the reform has improved the position of small farmers.
Since the policies and programmes lack clear and measurable targets in terms of output and costs, it is not possible to assess the extent to which policy goals have been attained and whether value for money has been obtained.
Faute de mieux, the prime indicator of financial performance commonly used is the extent to which the appropriations allocated in the budget have been utilised and not whether they are efficiently and effectively spent.
That confirms the persistence of the "spending culture" within the Community, more concerned with the volume of expenditure than with its quality.
I underline that this is about the Community as a whole.
At the same time, evaluation is not consistently applied and rarely results in concrete corrective action.
This is the case, for example, of the mid-term evaluation of the structural measures where the methodological framework remains inadequate and relevant indicators are lacking.
The Commission should ensure a proper link between evaluation results and programming.
The 1998 annual report again reveals weaknesses in the three layers of the Community's financial control: at the Commission; in the Member State systems; and in the Commission's supervision of Member States' systems.
The Commission's internal control did not prevent the cases of mismanagement and irregularities that have recently been uncovered.
At the same time the internal audit function is carried out in an uncoordinated way by several bodies.
The Court's audit of the 1998 accounts has found cases where the internal control failures have led to ineligible costs being financed by the Commission, overcharging, backdating contracts or an absence of supporting documentation.
These have adversely affected the Court's statement of assurance, notably in the area of internal policies.
Nor can Member States' control systems be relied on to prevent errors.
In the area of structural measures the Court has detected a high incidence of errors with regard to the final recipients of the Community aid and the public bodies managing the funds.
The most common errors are financing ineligible transactions, overpayments, breaching tendering or state aid rules and insufficient supporting documentation.
They indicate that Member States urgently need to reinforce their control systems.
According to the Treaty, in those areas where management is shared with the Member States, the Commission has the responsibility to supervise and ensure that national control systems are adequate.
The Court's audit in 1998 reveals shortcomings in supervisory activity.
The Commission also needs to step up its supervision of bodies implementing Community funds on its behalf, such as the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund.
As noted in the Court's Special Report No 3/99 on the management and control of interest-rate subsidies, on occasions the Commission had little knowledge of the projects or of the final beneficiaries.
The Commission has now embarked on a process of administrative reform which should embrace fundamental improvements in financial control both at the Commission and in the Member States.
As Parliament knows, the Court has already pointed out in Opinion No 4/97, on one of the Commission's proposed revisions of the financial regulation, that the role of the various officials responsible for control should be redefined.
In particular, the authorising officer must be responsible for checking the regularity, the quality and effectiveness of the measures undertaken.
A genuine, independent audit function should be introduced.
Its purpose should be to check the way the control structures set up by the managing departments work and to ensure that they are satisfactory.
Management and control of Community programmes are being decentralised from the Commission to national authorities and other intermediaries.
This should be accompanied by development of management information and accounting systems, which would enable the Commission to exercise proper supervision to detect errors and cases of misadministration promptly.
Where national systems of management and control are found inadequate, the flow of funds could be halted until remedial action has been taken.
Currently, the Commission is preparing a global revision of the Financial Regulation.
This exercise must be carried out with care and vision even if it means extending the duration of related work.
As I have already said, when presenting the annual report to the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Commission should increase its effort to simplify its financial and accounting regulations and procedures.
They should be aimed at facilitating and speeding up operations while maintaining the required degree of control.
Improved management also requires mastery of human resources.
The Commission's staffing is a general problem that the Court has frequently highlighted.
The 1998 annual report again draws attention to shortcomings in this matter.
The Commission, like any other efficient organisation, needs a flexible staffing policy which will allow it to recruit, allocate and redeploy its staff better, taking account of the numbers and skills of staff needed for specific activities.
In the meantime, the Commission should ensure that it accepts no additional responsibilities without sufficient personnel being made available.
As regards the protection of the financial interests of the Community, this year has been marked by the establishment of the European Fraud Investigation Office, OLAF, in which the Court's opinion and reports have played a certain role.
The Court will continue to work closely with OLAF while at the same time continuing to examine the way in which it carries out its duties.
I would like to recall that the Treaty requires Member States to cooperate with the Commission to ensure that funds are used in accordance with principles of sound financial management and to take the same measures to counter fraud against the Community budget as are taken to protect national financial interests.
However, only one Member State has fully ratified the conventions and the related protocols signed in 1995 and 1997 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and on fighting corruption.
Only three other Member States have done so partially.
I have now presented to you the Court of Auditors' annual report for 1998.
The audit findings confirm that the financial management culture urgently needs to be changed.
It is indispensable to set measurable policy objectives and evaluate performance against these; to seek for efficiency and effectiveness; to transform the Commission's internal audit function and to reinforce Member State controls; to find better ways of ensuring legality, regularity and value for money; to simplify the financial rules and stick to sound budgetary and accounting principles; to promote accountability; to adopt the necessary measures to allow the recruitment and allocation of staff according to needs; to sustain reform.
Implementing all these measures will take time.
I am convinced that the new Commission is determined to achieve this change, which is needed for the success of future enlargement of the Union.
By speeding up the enlargement process the Commission has given us the task of speeding up reform.
The other European Community institutions and the Member States are consequently called upon to collaborate.
On behalf of the European Court of Auditors, I can assure you that the Court will contribute to this initiative in a constructive manner.
Mr President, I welcome the fact that at last, we are discussing this report.
I would condemn the other groups for not allowing us to discuss this in November: That was a wrong decision.
It was outrageous that we did not allow the Court to have a press conference.
We lost the opportunity of an important public platform.
I was also extremely disappointed that the President of the Court of Auditors did not remain in Brussels earlier this month.
The report proves beyond all doubt that the reform process is long overdue.
We need radical reforms if we are to see improvement of a very serious situation.
This is the fifth time the Commission has not given a statement of assurance and it is clear that the Commission needs to understand that it is engaged in reform and it will be judged not by its words and its reports, but by its actions.
It is clear that in efforts to reform itself, the Commission needs to concentrate not on where the money is spent but the extent to which policy goals are met, and that with a minimum cost.
As Mr Karlsson said, we need to tackle the spending culture.
That means we need clear, precise and measurable goals from the Commission.
In my own country of Wales we receive significant money from the structural funds, but the line between creating a job and safeguarding a job is unclear and therefore it is difficult for us to assess how effective those structural funds have been.
The Commission needs to make fundamental improvements to its own internal control mechanisms.
One of the main problems, highlighted again, is that of passing the buck.
Nobody is taking responsibility and the responsibility for spending money well is shared between too many people.
That clearly needs to be reformed.
We expect to see rigorous new management and control systems in the forthcoming reform.
In particular, we need to see a reform of the Financial Regulation.
But let us not forget that over 85% of the money that comes from the EU budget is spent within the Member States and they need to put their own house in order.
Human resources is also an issue which clearly needs to be addressed.
This report has vindicated the forced resignation of a sloppy, slapdash Commission and revealed a catalogue of irresponsibility by Member States who are prepared to criticise but not act on fraud and irregularities.
The new Commission is heading in the right direction and we hope that we will see an end to these kinds of reports.
We can put them behind us once we see an improvement in terms of the reform process.
I should like to finish by putting a clear question to Mr Karlsson: does he personally think there is anything specific in the 1998 report which should stop Parliament from granting discharge?
Mr President, Mr Karlsson, this Annual Report demonstrates that the supervision of EU expenditure still leaves a great deal to be desired.
To a large extent, the problem lies with the Member States, but the Commission should not hide behind this fact.
The Court of Auditors is right to point out that the Commission must ensure that any shortcomings on the part of the Member States are properly dealt with.
What is more, the Commission' s housekeeping has a lot to answer for too.
It is most revealing that the highest percentage of material incidences of error has been detected within the internal management department.
After all, it is the Commission itself that has exclusive responsibility for financial management within this department.
The Annual Report underlines once again that we must work out, in structural terms, what the added value of the various European programmes amounts to.
Up until now, the Commission has focused too heavily on high levels of expenditure.
There has been little or no testing of effectiveness on the basis of clearly measurable policy objectives.
The Commission must also keep a closer eye on whether individual projects abide by general community objectives.
Accordingly, we must call an immediate halt to financing from structural funds projects that are at odds with objectives relating to environmental protection.
The Court of Auditors is right to put its finger on this serious problem.
Finally, the whole state of affairs with regard to the leaking of the draft report raises questions as to the independence of the Court of Auditors.
It is right that the Commission should be allowed to inspect the Annual Report before publication so as to correct any factual errors beforehand. But did the Commission confine itself to this?
Or is it true that the Court of Auditors toned down the report under pressure from the Commission? In order to clear this up, the European Parliament ought, in the process of the discharge procedure, to analyse the differences between the draft report and the definitive report in detail and assess them on their merits.
Mr President, although I welcome the Court of Auditors' report, which is extremely useful and which this Chamber should support, because in so doing, we will be supporting Europe as a whole, I cannot avoid mentioning the unease caused by the fact that some of the media have recently leaked partial and biased versions of the report. Mr Karlsson, this is something that apart from causing our citizens, officials and institutions unnecessary harm, gives the impression that the Court of Auditors is a political body that is accountable to the electors through public opinion.
These leaks, Mr Karlsson, do not occur in the great majority of the Courts of Auditors in the Member States or in the European regions.
Therefore, it should not be impossible for you to prevent them either.
It shows a lack of respect for this House and for yourselves, because it shows that those whose duty it is to monitor are not actually monitoring the process itself.
Therefore, Mr Karlsson, if these leaks occur again, my group will demand a reform that goes beyond merely postponing this debate.
Secondly, I would like to say that the problem of the irregularities and of the way the budget has been misused is not a geographical problem, but one that cuts across all divisions.
Here there is no North, South, East or West. There are no rich countries or poor countries.
What we have here is simply a problem of the inadequacy and the misinterpretation of national and Community legislation.
I would like the countries who bear the burden of the effort towards internal economic and social cohesion not to use this kind of argument as, of those countries, it is the countries that receive funds from the European Union that have the most to gain from the effectiveness of this effort.
Finally, I would like to stress the fact that the Commission still intends - as the report that you have presented to us states - to use the degree of use of the financial credits allocated in the annual budget as the main gauge of the success of their financial management.
What the Commission must in fact do is to measure its success by the degree to which it manages to achieve the objectives that it has been given, at the lowest cost.
This change of philosophy is what, by supporting the report that you have presented, we demand of the reform that President Prodi promised this Parliament he would carry out.
Mr President, the 1998 report of the Court of Auditors, which has been debated all over Europe except - until today - in this House, clearly demonstrates the need for the Commission and Member States to redouble their efforts in the fight against fraud.
Both have a duty to ensure that tax-payers' money is well spent.
If we are to keep the people's trust and win their support for the ambitious plans outlined at Helsinki this weekend, three steps are essential.
First, Member States themselves must do more to detect fraud.
Cooperation between the European Court of Auditors and its national counterparts must be strengthened, if necessary by means of legislation.
Second, as Mr Karlsson just made very clear, the Commission's financial management must be improved.
The Commission has announced a programme of reforms.
If these are to be successful they must be radical, comprehensive and based on a very clear timetable.
Third, Parliament must put its own house in order.
We can only be credible as the people's watchdog if the recommendations of the Court of Auditors which relate to this institution are implemented without delay.
Parliament must do everything within its powers to demonstrate that it is serious about eliminating waste.
It is for this very reason that, like many of my colleagues, I shall not be attending tomorrow's opening ceremony of this expensive and obviously flawed building that nobody asked for.
Mr President, for us Socialists, the Court of Auditors is basic to the European Union. That may be seen from the large number of Socialists who are speaking here today.
It is also a very important tool which citizens have for scrutinising and supervising the European Union' s activities and holding it accountable.
As has been said here on a number of occasions, that is also why we were irritated by the fact that the President of the Court of Auditors was not previously able to appear here before Parliament.
At the same time as the annual report of the Court of Auditors was being presented, an incident occurred at the Commission' s official office in Stockholm. It emerged that inadmissible wage payments had been made there.
One wonders how it is going to be possible to keep the whole of the European Union in order if a small office of 20 people cannot be kept in check.
That is where the Court of Auditors comes in.
I should like to say that how this small office and the way in which it has carried out its duties and managed its finances is to be dealt with will be a test of the European Union' s credibility in this context, that is to say of its openness and accountability.
I should like to ask the President of the Court of Auditors, who has visited Stockholm, what impressions he has obtained of the incident there and what measures might be expected to be taken.
Mr President, the Court of Auditors' conclusions resemble those we have seen in many recent years.
It is not possible for them to come up with a positive opinion.
There is a need for the Member States to take greater responsibility.
They administer approximately 80% of the budget and they do not do it particularly well.
I am naturally pleased that Denmark is not singled out for attack this year.
I am a little surprised, however, that the Court of Auditors should again have volunteered a remark about the feta issue.
In fact, that matter was closed a long time ago.
In February, Mr Kinnock will be submitting a proposal for a reform of the Commission.
This is perhaps one of the things we are to be tackling.
One of the most important changes concerns the staff culture.
It happens too rarely that employees are suspended or fired if they are incompetent or corrupt.
There does exist the opportunity to dismiss incompetent employees on the basis of Article 52 of the staff regulations.
This Article ought to be made use of, and in general it never is.
This practice ought therefore to be changed.
If we are to stamp out irregularities and fraud, we need to change the staff culture and the tendency for people' s being able to get away with murder if they have the right friends to cover for them.
We should be cleaning up our act after previous scandals.
What signals are being sent out to future leaders of the Commission if those responsible for the scandals can just carry on in good jobs? In this way, we shall never see a positive opinion from the Court of Auditors.
We need to put our house in order following the mistakes of the past, both internally within the Commission and also in the Member States.
Mr President, it is also an historic day today in so far as we for once witnessed one of our colleagues seeing the light, namely Mr Dell' Alba.
Mr President, Mr President of the Court of Auditors, ladies and gentlemen, to use taxpayers' money in accordance with clear political priorities and in accordance with principles of economy and efficiency are objectives which all those who deal with a public budget should be determined to achieve, and these are the objectives which the new Commission is determined to achieve.
The Court of Auditors has the task of checking to see whether these objectives are met; it has the task of ascertaining whether public funds are being managed in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation, and it tells the Commission what changes need to be made to ensure proper financial management.
In its report on the 1998 financial year, the Court of Auditors has explained in how many areas urgent changes need to be made.
And Mr Bösch, I am not aware of any statement by the new Commission saying that we had found it reassuring that once again the statement of assurance could not be made.
On the contrary, we said that it is disturbing - as has also been stressed here - that for the fifth time the regularity of the payments effected could not be confirmed.
That is why the Commission will, of course, also be setting about implementing these changes with vigour.
In some areas, changes have already been put in train by the old Commission; this is the case with the Structural Funds, for example.
For the new aid period there will be new rules governing the financial steps which the Commission can take if the provisions under which grants are awarded and implemented are infringed.
President Karlsson emphasised in his speech that wide-ranging reforms are necessary in order to achieve better financial management.
I am, therefore, very pleased that the Commission is resolutely planning a process of reform and is committed to pursuing it.
I should like to mention three components of the reform, which are of great significance for financial management.
The first is activity-based budgeting.
In the future, beginning with the 2001 budget, it is intended that when the EU budget is drawn up, it should more closely reflect political priorities than has been the case in the past, and that the decisions on priorities should not only affect operating appropriations but also the required staff appropriations, so that more staff are deployed in the areas of political priority.
The second key aspect of the reform is strengthening the financial responsibility of all the departments which administer EU funds.
The Commission will adopt the approach which has long since been advocated by Parliament, which Mr Karlsson has also outlined once again just now and which I also announced in my written answers to parliamentary questions in August.
This consists of devolving responsibility for financial control to the departments in charge of the spending programmes, thus decentralising and at the same time increasing the level of financial responsibility in the administrative departments which effect the expenditure.
The third important component is amending the Financial Regulation.
A new, extensively amended version is required and work on this is underway.
It will take account of very many of the Court of Auditors' criticisms, including, for example, the issue of recording advance payments and final payments separately in the accounts.
It will be an important step towards greater transparency across the accounting system.
I should also like briefly to comment on the premature publication of the Court of Auditors' report and the anger felt about this in Parliament.
I think that we should reflect together on the timetable for publication and the debate in Parliament.
In my opinion, it is right for there to be an interval of time between publication and the debate here in this House, so that all Members are able to familiarise themselves with the full report beforehand.
I think it is a matter of urgency to initiate a consultation procedure here so that a better solution can be found.
Mr President, Mr President of the Court of Auditors, ladies and gentlemen, it is my intention to go through the Court of Auditors' report sector by sector with the departments, and, above all, with the Member States, and to find out why the mistakes were made in the first place. Who ought to have acted differently?
What instruments are available to avoid mistakes of this kind being made in the future, and how quickly can improvements be achieved?
A systematic follow-up of this kind is essential. I will do my utmost to implement this kind of systematic follow-up and I am very pleased that the Commission has decided - as part of its reform package on financial management - to formalise the structure of this systematic follow-up, so that in the future the observations of the Court of Auditors really can be used to improve financial management, and I would ask the European Parliament to support this comprehensive project of reform.
Thank you very much, Mr Karlsson, President of the Court of Auditors.
The debate is closed.
(The sitting was suspended at 8.20 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)
Socrates (second phase)
The next item is the report (A5-0097/1999) by Mrs Pack, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European and Council decision establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education, 'Socrates' (C5-0267/1999 - 1998/0195(COD)).
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Parliament and the Commission for having brought the conciliation to a successful conclusion.
I do not, however, wish to congratulate the Council because I feel that there has been no response from the Council in terms of the generosity needed for future programmes.
Therefore, I would like to congratulate the two main protagonists though because they have furthermore ensured that everything will function normally in January and the budgets are ready for the start of the meetings.
In this context however, I would like to say a few words which should be included in the Minutes rather than disappear into thin air.
I would like to talk about a problem that I observed throughout the negotiation: that of the difficult, complex and rather vague concept of culture and education that most of the European Union' s institutions seem to hold.
I shall highlight some of the contradictions.
Strangely, the educational and cultural programmes tend to be fully agreed on, to be voted for most enthusiastically by all parties, and yet, these are, nevertheless, the programmes that receive the worst treatment in budgetary terms.
This is the first contradiction.
On the other hand, the cultural programmes, and specifically "Socrates" , are the ones that benefit the most people and, moreover, involve few intermediaries.
"Socrates" directly reaches those who gain from it.
We are not talking about lobbies here, but about people who are benefiting from something that is by no means a subsidy, but a life-long investment.
On the other hand, this is a budget that accumulates and attracts broad cooperation from all countries.
For the "Socrates" programme for example, the European Union only pays 10% in my country, Spain.
The rest is made up by the institutions, the Spanish State and the families themselves.
We can see then that there is an 80% increase in all educational programmes in general. What do I mean by this?
Simply that we have wasted a great deal of money on education.
If the Council had been more generous, many institutions and individuals would have put money on the table.
I would like to say something else that I think is important: education cannot be guided by the principle of subsidiarity alone.
Does the exchange of educational methods affect the principle of subsidiarity? Can getting to know another country, understanding it and experiencing it be considered an attack on the principle of subsidiarity?
Countries will never be able to implement the Socrates programme on their own.
This is a programme that transcends and surpasses the stature of individual nations.
That is its greatness, its power and its strength, and that is why everyone believes in it to the extent that we can speak of thousands of good results.
Above all though, there is one result that must never be forgotten: the capability for cohesion and unity that this programme gives us.
Mr President, I think that we have already heard much about the opportunities and possibilities which the Socrates programme will offer us over the next seven years.
I do not believe, however, that we have fully discharged our responsibilities here for the near future.
Precisely the opposite is true.
Now the countries, but also the European Union, are asked to implement this programme so that we can see, above all, how it develops over the next two to two and a half years and so that we can make adjustments to it and alter or reassess various aspects where it proves to be necessary.
I am convinced that it provides an opportunity for young people in Europe and that it is proof that Europe must not only be a Europe of figures and economics, but that education and culture actually form the foundation stone on the basis of which we understand each other and regions - as diverse as their cultures are - complement each other and are tolerant of any differences between them.
In turn, this teaches us to show solidarity with people who are different, who are less well-off and who, above all, have a harder time of it than we do.
I should like to call on all those who have the opportunity to take advantage of the Socrates programme, who are able to use educational opportunities, who are going to be able to continue their education in the future, who contribute to Europe growing together, also to recognise in the course of their education that we are setting a fast pace at the moment in our process of development and in all our programmes, that there are those who cannot match this pace, and that we should take them by the hand and take them with us because quality, standards and education also require us not to sideline those who are weaker than ourselves.
Mr President, Commissioner, the future belongs to the young.
This well-known [Dutch] expression perfectly embodies the spirit of the Socrates programme.
Europe is the future and in order to achieve this future, we need the young.
They need to get to know each other and gain an understanding of each other' s cultures and how better can this be achieved than by studying together, having fun together and by learning each other' s languages. In this way, we can achieve more understanding and solidarity among the young within the European Union.
Mr President, this is important now but this will certainly be important in the future too, with a view to enlargement.
I would therefore like to touch upon two additional aspects which have been highlighted in a conciliation.
Firstly, I am delighted that we have finally managed to convince the Council of the fact that more funding should be made available for such an important and successful programme.
This is mainly thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, who I could not praise enough for her commitment and tenacity, in particular, and also you, of course, Mrs Reding, for the intelligent and frank remarks you contributed.
It was not easy to make the Council see that, in view of the pending enlargement, this programme will be used a great deal more.
But governing is all about anticipation and this means that, if necessary, the programme should be able to be adapted sooner if more countries would like to take part in it.
I would hate to exclude the young from candidate countries.
Secondly, I am pleased that the selection procedures for the projects too have been somewhat simplified, but there is more room for improvement.
I hear many complaints about the fact that the application procedure is both complicated and lengthy.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard.
My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee.
In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn.
I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning.
The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all.
We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe.
In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks.
I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy.
With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or "Lingua".
Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages.
I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.
Mr President, Commissioner, I think that we need to congratulate Mrs Pack, the rapporteur, for her work on the second stage of the Socrates programme.
I would also like to thank the whole of the European Parliament delegation which, with a lot of patience and determination, secured an increase in the financial provision of at least EUR 300 million.
This is a valuable resource for our young people, who have great confidence in the educational and training potential of this programme.
I will take this opportunity though, to remind the House that whether or not Socrates will be completely successful depends largely on the publicity this programme will be given within the individual Member States and the speed of the selection process.
Indeed, many European young people often complain of the difficulty of finding timely information on the programmes that concern them.
More widespread information and less red tape will certainly ensure real equal opportunities and more democratic access to the programme.
In this way, young people, above all, those least well-off and most disadvantaged will be able to consider Socrates as a chance for integration, for cultural enrichment and professional training, but above all, as a chance to have personal experiences and life experiences, in order to gain the flexibility and open-mindedness necessary to address, in the best way, employment challenges in the world of work: this is why SOCRATES is an important investment for the young people of Europe.
Mr President, the results achieved by the Socrates programme are indeed impressive.
In all, 500 000 students have spent time studying in another Member State as part of their course.
110 000 young people have taken part in exchanges.
Overall, 1 500 universities and over 10 000 schools throughout the European Union have participated in this programme over the last four years.
Parliament and the Commission wanted to build on this success for the years 2000 to 2007.
The younger generation should have the opportunity not only to continue being involved in Europe but to become more involved.
Above all though, young people in the applicant countries should have the opportunity to take part in the new programme on an equal footing from the very beginning.
It is certainly hard to understand why the Council - which extended such a warm invitation a few days ago in Helsinki - denied the young people of Europe the funding which we considered necessary in the Conciliation Committee.
That is why my particular thanks go to the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and Commissioner Reding, who together with the Conciliation Committee have squeezed EUR 300 million out of the Council.
I think that the Council can be sure that over the next few years the Commission and Parliament will continue to fight for young people in this way so as to obtain sufficient funds.
Can I first of all thank and congratulate Mrs Pack for leading us through this process, and also the Commission for standing by in what was a hard-fought, long and, in Parliament's view, a responsible negotiation, following which we are very happy to vote for the programme.
We all agree that Socrates I has provided us with a vital building block in the lives of young Europeans.
I have seen young people in areas of particular social exclusion in my own Member State, who did not know very much about the south-east of England, let alone the south-east of France or Spain, blossom and come forth in terms in confidence and educational capacity as a result of their interactions with other students from other Member States.
In terms of the ability of the programme to spearhead the values of Parliament, it is a tremendous success.
Socrates is vital to the expansion of the educational capacity of our young people, not only in terms of their cultural capacity but in terms of their economic foundation as well.
We have seen that it is very much at the frontline when it comes to providing a future for a solid European Union.
We will benefit from the experience of Socrates I and the new coherent and comprehensive approach that we will see in Socrates II.
However, our job does not finish there.
In the next few years we have a vital role to play in examining the financial framework and the framework with a view to the enlargement, because that is when we will see the strains on Socrates II and its ability to deal with a new enlarged European Union.
We must provide for those incoming Member States the tremendous opportunities it is currently providing for our students.
Mr President, Socrates II has now arrived, even though it cost a certain amount of effort.
Negotiating with the Council into the early hours of the morning is not always too exciting, but it was worth it this time.
Throughout the process, Mrs Pack has done a lot of good work, and I want to take the opportunity to thank her, just as I want to thank Commissioner Reding for her collaboration.
We have obtained a good Socrates programme containing some sensible initiatives which take account of the fact that the EU is on the brink of enlargement.
As a Dane, I cannot help but comment, in particular, on the Grundtvig initiative.
In Denmark, we have had a distinguished tradition of lifelong learning since the nineteenth century, and it is precisely the poet, priest and co-author of the Danish constitution, N.F.S. Grundtvig, who stands out as one of the founders of the entire folk high school movement in Denmark, a movement which helped educate ordinary people at a time when this was unusual.
The Danish folk high schools also play an important role in offering education to people of all ages.
It is good that we have got ourselves a scheme designed to give a boost to lifelong learning.
It is no secret that, when we insisted to the bitter end in Parliament that the Directive should include a review clause, this was in order to ensure that the programme would also be able to function properly following any enlargement of the European Union.
Mr President, all I can do is warmly recommend people to vote in favour of this report.
In fact, I cannot imagine anyone voting against it.
Mr President, at the outset I would like to commend Mrs Pack and Parliament's delegation to the Conciliation Committee for their dedicated efforts to secure the best agreement on the second phase of the Socrates programme.
But I would have liked to have seen the Council move a lot closer to Parliament's figure of EUR 2,500 million.
I nevertheless welcome the increase on the common position of EUR 300 million.
This means that a total of EUR 1,850 million will be made available over the seven year period of the new programme.
I, like most of my colleagues, am an ardent supporter of the aims of the Socrates programme and have witnessed its benefits to education and to local communities.
Education must always be a priority of spending programmes as it is the way in which we build the future.
If we want the next generation to be enthusiastic European as well as national citizens we must be prepared to put our money where our mouth is and invest in high-quality education.
I particularly welcome the fact that the second phase of Socrates places such an emphasis upon promoting knowledge of EU languages.
As a Member of Parliament representing the largest part of Ireland's Irish-speaking Gaeltacht region I am very pleased to see that this extends to the Irish language which is a Treaty language.
I firmly believe that the granting of financial support for the teaching and learning of Irish and also Luxembourgish sends out the right signals that Parliament clearly and positively supports minority languages.
Mr President, in the end we can thank three people for completing the Socrates programme.
The most credit obviously goes to Mrs Pack.
Maija Rask, the Finnish Minister of Education, also demonstrated passionate feelings during the night' s negotiations to reach conciliation.
And everything was crowned by the diplomatic skills of Renzo Imbeni, chairman of the committee.
It is excellent that we can now adopt this programme, which is so important for the citizens of Europe.
At the same time, I would like to draw attention to the flaws I observed in the handling of multiannual programmes to be approved by means of the codecision procedure.
There was no official cooperation between the Special Committee and the Committee on Budgets with regard to the second reading and conciliation.
This weakens Parliament' s negotiating position, as agreement on the demands of Parliament for the financial perspectives can be called into question.
In my opinion, there should be a review of the procedures with regard to these matters.
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council.
We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates.
A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report.
Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened.
It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area.
For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness - a European identity - and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe.
For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions.
We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures.
This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course.
One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part.
Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so.
Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures.
We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.
Mr President, I should like to illustrate the past success of Socrates through soup.
Yes, you heard me correctly.
This was not my idea but the idea of Whitfield Primary School in Dundee, Scotland.
These people came up with a "Soups in Europe" project, working with partner schools in Austria, Denmark, Italy and France.
Their idea was that soup is a common food amongst people and that soup transcends boundaries.
Through this project, which was directly related to the Scottish curriculum, they organised a parents' soup day and, with their other partners, produced a book with 25 soup recipes.
Through soup and the support of Socrates the outcome of this project was more motivated pupils and staff, a greater awareness of their own environment as well as other places, and increased understanding of information communication technology.
I hope that the next Socrates programme produces more projects like that of Whitfield Primary School and maybe the next time you tuck into a bowl of soup, you will remember the educational value Socrates has across the Union.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.
Multilateral cooperation in North-East Atlantic fisheries
The next item is the report (A5-0092/1999) by Mr Busk, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down certain control measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries (COM(1999) 345 - C5-0201/1999 - 1999/0138(CNS)).
. (DA) Mr President, the aim of the current Commission proposal is to bring Community legislation into line with the recommendations adopted by NEAFC in 1998.
In this way, earlier measures will be incorporated into a comprehensive and reinforced new control scheme designed to ensure respect for the conservation and management policy agreed under the Convention.
The proposal has two main objectives: firstly, a scheme of control and enforcement is to be established for the Contracting Parties; and, secondly, a programme promoting compliance by non-Contracting Party vessels with NEAFC' s regulations is to be carried out.
The recommendations are reminiscent of the rules which are applied within the organisation governing fisheries in the north-west Atlantic, NAFO.
Through consultation and cooperation, NAFO contributes to the optimum utilisation, rational management and conservation of the fisheries resources within this Convention Area.
The Commission has tabled a proposal for converting NEAFC' s recommendations into Community legislation which, in a simplified and coherent way, incorporates all the acquired experience from NAFO and is in keeping with Parliament' s previous position.
The proposal has two aspects to it which ought to be emphasised.
First of all, the implementation of Community policy.
The present proposal contains only the general guidelines for the Community' s initiatives in this area.
It was left to the Commission to adopt the technical aspects after having submitted these to a Management Committee.
Nevertheless, the Commission may be assured that Parliament will closely monitor decisions taken under this procedure, and it will in particular ensure that the same methods for the reporting of catches and fishing effort are applied by all Member States.
Secondly, the financial burden.
When it comes to distributing this, the Commission believes that it is up to the Member States to provide adequate resources to meet their obligations of control within NEAFC.
I would again draw a parallel with NAFO, where inspection and control are funded from the Community budget.
I should like to see increased Community involvement in inspection and control in order to ensure that the rules are applied even-handedly.
Openness and fairness are vital elements in obtaining fishermen' s support, and it is only through obtaining their support that any reinforcement of inspection and control arrangements will really be effective.
Increased Community involvement in the future will naturally have budgetary implications and demand a reallocation of resources.
This ought not however to deflect the Commission from taking the lead in pressing for change or to deter the European Parliament from calling upon the Commission to do so.
Provided that the appropriate increased financial resources are made available, there is no reason why the Community cannot play a much more active role.
The recommendations came into force on 1 July 1999.
They were therefore already binding on the Community before the Commission tabled its proposal on 12 July 1999.
The European Parliament has not therefore had the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate, and I should like, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, to criticise the Commission for this.
This is an outrageous way of going on, to use one of the words employed during the debate in the Committee on Fisheries.
Finally, I should like to emphasise the importance of informing the fishing industry of the purpose of the proposal and of making it clear that the rules are to the industry' s advantage.
Despite the aforementioned reservations and criticism about the timing of the Commission' s proposal, this important legislation should be approved by Parliament without delay.
I congratulate Niels Busk on his report.
Mr Busk is a very sensible member of the Fisheries Committee and I think that Parliament can have confidence in his report.
While I have no hesitation in supporting this important legislation and recommending that it should be improved by Parliament without delay, I nevertheless have two brief comments I would like to make.
First of all the Fisheries Committee was presented with a fait accompli by the Commission in respect of this proposal.
These regulations actually came into force on 1 July this year, although the Commission tabled the proposals before this Parliament on 12 July.
We were therefore left in a position where we had no alternative but to support the proposals.
I find this behaviour extraordinary.
I recall Commissioner Fischler stating during his hearing before the Fisheries Committee on 30 August that he wished to cooperate closely with Parliament and the standing committees of Parliament in a working partnership.
I hope that such a working partnership will indeed manifest itself in future and that we will not again be treated in such a cavalier fashion by the Commission.
We are the democratically elected representatives of the people of the European Community and we are not here simply to act as a rubber stamp for regulations that have already been implemented by the Commission in advance of consultation.
Secondly, although I do not intend to recommend that we vote against Mr Busk's report, I feel it is worth sounding a note of caution that the rapporteur has called for more Community financial involvement in inspection and control of fisheries.
Such involvement implies additional budget resources and, as my colleagues on the Committee on Budgets never cease to point out, the cake is limited in size so that every time we cut off another slice it means less for some other equally important sector.
Only last week, in the context of the report by Carmen Fraga Estévez on the common organisation of the market in fisheries and aquaculture products, this House voted to allocate subsidies to the aquaculture industry for the first time, once again eating into the limited fisheries budget.
We must be financially realistic and prudent and I trust that the House will note my concern at this latest threatened raid on the fisheries budget.
Mr President, there was a report in the newspaper recently - and we examined it in the Fisheries Committee - about the cod catch in the North-East Atlantic and a bilateral agreement between Russia and Norway, two States which - together with other States such as Iceland, Poland and those of the European Union - are equal contracting parties in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.
All the States, including Russia and Norway therefore, have committed themselves in this Commission not only to multilateral cooperation but also to obeying a common code.
This is based, amongst other things, on technical data recommended by ICES, the scientific organisation, and now Russia and Norway want to break away and, on the basis of a bilateral agreement, fish possibly three to four times the quantity recommended by the scientists.
This is incredible!
Whenever anything connected with the misuse of resources has gone wrong in the EU in the past, we have always looked admiringly at the Norwegians and their fisheries management, but now we see that the Norwegians are no different from anybody else.
That is why this report by Mr Busk is so important.
It is about a significant legal instrument which seeks to establish a coherent and permanent system of control measures involving all contracting parties in the areas mentioned. The experience of the fisheries commissions in the north-east and north-west Atlantic must be transferred into EU Community law.
The EU can be the forerunner here.
Is it?
Can it sharpen its image as a driving force? If so it would be well on the way to marketing itself and its policy better than in the past.
This is precisely what Commissioner Fischler has in mind; he is calling in general for an improved marketing strategy in the fisheries sector.
Control measures at EU level and at Member State level need to be balanced out.
This buck-passing game has to stop!
We are dealing with cold waters late at night in the middle of December and it seems that only the EPP has the nerve to go swimming.
For that reason there is not very much left to say.
My colleague Mr Stevenson has been complaining bitterly about the fact that we are dealing with something that is already in effect.
Nevertheless, he was not here in the last Parliament and when he has been here as long as I have he will learn to have a little bit more patience.
It was a particularly bad season for the Commission and a particularly difficult time to proceed through all the normal channels since we had elections, Commission difficulties, and so on.
Of course, I am impressed by the quality of the legislation and by the fact that this is the way to solve problems internationally, that everybody sits down and makes agreements.
But, of course, if the Commission, representing all of us in ensuring that this agreement is put into good effect, does not have any resources to do it with, then we are back to the original situation as far as the Member States are concerned.
Nobody has absolute confidence that anybody else is carrying out the supervision and enforcing the law as they should and we will end up in the same situation with this agreement.
If we do not agree, having adopted common policies, to give ourselves the resources to ensure that these policies are put into effect, then we are really stretching ourselves too far and we are only bringing the Community and its laws and regulations into disrepute.
That is the major reservation that I have about what we are proposing here tonight.
May I thank the rapporteur, Mr Niels Busk, and congratulate him on the excellent report he has presented on the Commission proposal with a view to integrating the NEAFC scheme of control into Community legislation.
In the area of control, the NEAFC scheme provides a model, based on the terms of the agreement on straddling stocks and highly migratory fish, or New York Agreement.
It is a model which concords broadly with the viewpoints defended by the Community in the context of this agreement.
The measures on the conservation of fish stocks and the monitoring of fishing activities must be dealt with in agreements signed in the framework of regional fishing organisations, and these organisations must serve as a platform for international cooperation.
The Community has contributed actively to the preparation of the NEAFC scheme of control.
The measures laid down are totally compatible with our point of view and our priorities regarding the improvement of the monitoring of high seas fishing activities.
In this context, it is of the utmost importance that the conditions of the NEAFC scheme of control should be integrated into Community legislation.
The Community must strive to ensure the success of this scheme of control, which will then serve as a model for other regional organisations, and the support which Parliament has given this proposal shows that, in this field as in others, as you know, Mr President, we share the same point of view.
The matter of financing and the distribution of financial burdens must be the subject of a debate in the wider context of the regional fishing organisations.
In order to bring about a debate of this kind, Mr Fischler sent you a communication on Community participation in regional fishing organisations, and this was also sent to the Council.
And Mr Fischler wishes to take part in the debate to be held on these points at the appropriate time, at some time next year.
On the basis of the conclusions which will be drawn from this wide-ranging debate, the Commission will then present fresh proposals, on which Parliament will be invited to give its opinion.
Mr Stevenson made a very pertinent comment, Mr President, and I have to say that the Commission acknowledges the criticism which has been levelled against it.
The fact is, however, that his remarks were directed not at the Prodi Commission but at their predecessors, and I must point out, on behalf of Commissioner Fischler, that we shall be doing all we can to ensure that such criticism is not justified in future.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.
Verification of the credentials of Members elected in June 1999
The next item is the report (A5-0084/1999) by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the verification of credentials of Members following the fifth direct election to the European Parliament on 10 to 13 June 1999.
Mr President, I have the honour of presenting this report on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market which appointed me institutional rapporteur.
This report on the verification of credentials has its roots and legal basis in Article 11 of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament annexed to the Council decision of 20 September 1976.
In accordance with this legal basis it falls to the European Parliament to verify the credentials of its Members until the uniform electoral procedure comes into force.
This report on the verification of credentials relates to the outcome of the fifth direct election to the European Parliament, which took place on 10 to 13 June 1999 and is based on the official notifications by all the Member States of the full election results and the names of any substitutes together with their ranking in accordance with the results of the vote.
However, in accordance with Article 7(5) of our Rules of Procedure, any Member may attend sittings of Parliament and its bodies even if his credentials have not been verified or a ruling has not been given on a dispute.
Accordingly, pending adoption of the report on the verification of credentials, - I hope with an overwhelming majority tomorrow in the plenary sitting - all of us, all Members elected in the fifth legislature, have been able to exercise our rights in full and with no restrictions.
The Rules of Procedure also lay down that, should an elected Member resign from Parliament before this report has been adopted in plenary, the vacancy and the name of the new Member shall be verified, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the Act of 20 September 1976, in a separate procedure independent of this report and which will take place at a convenient time.
Therefore, this report relates only to the acquisition of a mandate as a result of the fifth direct elections to the European Parliament.
The competent national authorities of fourteen Member States sent their official notifications on 20 July 1999.
As far as Luxembourg was concerned, there was a delay in declaring the candidates elected due to the fact that a general election was held at the same time as the European election.
In these elections, some candidates stood for the European Parliament as well as for the national parliament and some were also potential Members of the future government of Luxembourg, which is incompatible, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Act of 20 September 1976, with Membership of the European Parliament.
Because the Luxembourg Government was not formed until early August 1999, the mandate of the now Commissioner Viviane Reding could not become effective, following notification from the competent Luxembourg authorities, until 7 August 1999.
In turn, Mrs Reding' s resignation will be subject to verification in a separate decision as I previously stated.
On the other hand, Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Procedure lays down that it is not possible to confirm the validity of the mandate of a Member unless the written declarations required on the basis of Article 6 of the Act of 20 September 1976 and Annex 1 to the Rules of Procedure have been made.
These declarations - it is worth pointing out - are to the effect that the Member does not hold any of the offices listed in Article 6 which are incompatible with membership of the European Parliament. They also contain precise information on the Member' s professional activities, any other remunerated functions or activities and any support, whether financial or in terms of staff or material.
I have to say that making these declarations is the sole responsibility of the Member, who must make them to the best of his or her knowledge.
In this procedure and in the report that I am presenting today, what will be verified is only whether the formal requirements have been met.
Therefore, Mr President, this is the background to the report on which we will vote tomorrow in plenary sitting in Parliament and for which, as rapporteur, I have presented two amendments which are justified by my explanation about the elections in Luxembourg and by what I have said.
Mr President, the present report by Mrs Palacio marks the successful completion of a laborious task.
We can adopt it, put it to one side and everything will take its course.
Is it just routine then? Not for me!
Because this report forces us to confront an issue which the European Parliament debated in the last Parliament and brought to a proper conclusion.
I am talking about uniform electoral law in Europe.
Do you remember the Anastassopoulos report in which we laid down a basis for electing Members of the European Parliament in accordance with the same principles in all the Member States? The new Members of this House will have to look it up.
Presumably it is slowly starting to resurface in the minds of longer-serving Members. No wonder, because this tends to be an everyday occurrence where the democratic foundations of the European Union are concerned.
Or am I wrong to say that the best proposals made by Parliament of all the nations of Europe - legitimised by virtue of being directly elected - are all too often of little value? Often they fall victim to the idleness of the Council and the governments of the Member States.
This is the case with the Anastassopoulos report and uniform electoral law.
Parliament has adopted it.
Unfortunately, there is no sign of it being transposed. In my opinion, this is catastrophic.
It is precisely in view of the European Union's enlargement that the public expects its democratic foundations to be consolidated.
This includes uniform electoral law with all the possibilities it has to offer, which we have described in the report.
As we vote for the Palacio report, let us express the hope that after the next European elections the relevant report will be based on uniform electoral law.
This would make the work easier and would be a substantial contribution to greater democracy and transparency in the European Union.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at noon.
Civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles
The next item is the recommendation for second reading (A5-0086/1999), on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the common position established by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth Motor Insurance Directive) (rapporteur: Mr Rothley).
Mr President, it all sounded so terribly technical in your announcement, but in reality this legislation significantly improves the protection of those who are victims of a road accident in another country.
I mention this because we are obviously no longer capable of expressing ourselves in such a way that people can understand what we are talking about.
We can be proud of this directive.
It is a joint effort on the part of the European Parliament, which took the initiative, but also the Commission which improved the original Parliament proposal considerably with the addition of the compensation body.
We can, however, also be grateful to the Council for accepting the essential points contained in the proposal.
As far as the recommendations for the second reading are concerned, I should like to concentrate on two points.
The vast majority of the amendments concern drafting points and the legal text itself.
Parts of the Council's common position are virtually incomprehensible.
I am even convinced that the authors themselves do not know what on earth they have written.
I should like to remind both the Commission and the Council of a very fine quotation from a 19th century German jurist, who said that the legislator must think like a philosopher and speak like a farmer, simply and clearly and so that people can understand.
The artistry involved in trying to find a compromise is usually reflected in the legislation, and the principle of speaking simply and clearly becomes out of the question.
Admittedly, there remains a problem of substance, where we in the European Parliament hold a different opinion from that of the Commission and the Council.
I should like to remind the Commission and the Council that in this matter we have the support of the profession, the insurers, who incidentally are the ones affected by the provisions of the whole directive.
We also have the support of the automobile associations and we have the support of the organisations of accident victims.
The only people in the whole world who still oppose this are the Commission and the Council.
What is it about? It is about this directive also applying if the accident has not taken place in a Member State of the EU but in a third country.
There is not the slightest reason for excluding this case from the scope of the directive.
Let us take the example of a Frenchman and an Italian who have an accident in Switzerland. Why should the directive not apply in this case?
Why not indeed? The insurers shake their heads and say that of course it can be done.
There is one insurance company which disagrees - a British company - but all the others are asking, why not?
By adopting this directive, we are not making any changes to substantive law, we are not in any way changing the court of jurisdiction, we are not in any way changing judicial procedures.
The one and only difference is that the accident victim from France - to use the same example - does not have to contact the Italian insurance company in Italy directly but the representative of the Italian insurance company in France.
That is all.
Wherever the accident has happened - for example in Switzerland - any further procedures, if there is no agreement, are not affected one jot by this directive.
It only regulates the settlement of disputes before they reach the courts, not in court.
Commissioner, that is why I am making this request.
Clearly specific interests have been at work here.
It was even claimed by the Commission in a trialogue that European insurers were against my solution.
The truth is different.
They are in favour of this solution.
Hence my recommendation, Commissioner: I urge the Commission to rethink its position. It is untenable.
I assume that the Council would then also accept this solution.
I wish to emphasise once more that this is not a proposal which has been dreamt up in a bureaucratic ivory tower. This proposal is the result of countless discussions with all of those involved.
That is also why I think that it is practicable, because those who have to deal with it in practice are after all telling us that it works, it works extremely well, and that is what they want.
Usually the Commission takes account of the interests of those involved.
Ask those involved then, and you will see that the solution proposed by the European Parliament meets with their approval.
There is, therefore, no reason for the scope of this directive to be restricted. This is in fact only to the detriment of accident victims.
We should not forget that!
Surely what we want is to improve the protection of accident victims.
That is why I make this plea: we should all reconsider this matter in the forthcoming conciliation procedure.
Mr President, this is an important directive.
It is important firstly because - as the rapporteur said - it is one of these completely successful cases of taking advantage of the opportunities made possible by the former Article 138B of the Treaty of Maastricht, in other words, this Parliament is launching an initiative that will be taken up by the Commission and followed up by the Council.
The rapporteur said that this is also an example of good cooperation between the three institutions.
However, I would like to highlight the hard work, which has been notable and entirely praiseworthy, almost Herculean, of the rapporteur, Mr Rothley, throughout the process, from the conception of the basic idea to the follow-up, full of passion and rigour, of the legislative work that has been carried out.
This is also an important directive, however, because now, when we are so concerned about the indifference of European citizens - who do not turn out to vote, who feel that Europe is very distant from them and who do not know whether Brussels is anything more than a place which produces what they perceive to be obligations - this is a good example of what our citizens really feel and understand to be the case.
This is something that they will notice in their daily lives because any of them may have a car, and any of them, even if they do not travel abroad much, will have the idea that "well, if I do go abroad at least I will be covered" .
It offers some security.
It is important for another reason.
Mr President, I would like to say most emphatically on behalf of the Group of the European People' s Party, that the large majority of us support the rapporteur, Mr Rothley, on the only point of real controversy which, as he has made very clear, is its field of application.
There is a, shall we say, technical problem in the way it will apply but we will have to resolve these issues from a technical point of view.
We utterly refuse to change the philosophy of it.
This Parliament has shown itself to be clearly opposed to moving from the idea of a binding law to the idea of a voluntary pact between people who are insured with a voluntary subscription on their part.
From that starting point, we can discuss the matter.
If it is true - and it is true, and I was the first to recognise this as I was quite opposed to this idea, defended from the outset by Mr Rothley -, that some technical modifications will need to be made, then so be it.
Let us not forget though that these modifications are to some extent an unnecessary clarification - and Mr Rothley is right in this - because in no case can a directive affect private international law or the rules of procedure.
If these clarifications need to be made, we will make them.
If an item needs to be revised, it shall be revised.
If we need to make a modification, we shall do so.
However, Mr President, in any event, the Group of the European People' s Party maintains that we will not change our philosophy.
We are not prepared to replace this philosophy of binding law with another one that is completely uncertain and not very favourable to the European citizen, to a voluntary subscription scheme.
I would like to start also by congratulating the rapporteur on this report.
A motor vehicle accident in any circumstances can be traumatic, all the more so if it involves personal injuries.
If we add to that an international dimension where the victims find themselves in a foreign country, the problems may be multiplied: differences in language, procedure, inability to identify or trace the third party, let alone deal with insurers.
The mere identification of the third parties is often lengthy and time-consuming.
Once the insurers are in touch, matters are often settled by negotiation.
This directive would be a welcome step in ensuring that the respective foreign insurers get in contact quickly and the proposals for settlement are promptly forthcoming.
So far, so good.
But our rapporteur wants to go one small step further and I feel, as others have already said, that we should support him.
This relates to accidents in third countries.
Let me spend a moment to share with you a case I had in private practice as a lawyer before I was elected to this Parliament.
It concerned a German national who had an accident in Turkey, caused by a UK national.
That claim was being negotiated by insurers in two Member States, and if it had been litigated, it would have been litigated in the UK, probably according to UK law.
So tell me where the problem is. This is what happens in practice.
There really is not a difficulty with including the small further step which the rapporteur is asking for.
The difficulties that have been thrown up can be overcome if there is a will to do so.
Lastly, I would just like to say one small thing on the question of damages.
I hope that we will come back to this in the future.
The measures or the methods of calculating damages across the European Union differ vastly.
We would do our citizens a great service if we could move towards harmonising this area as well.
Mr President, essentially I can endorse what previous speakers have said.
We have here a good example of a Europe which is close to the people.
I should like to say quite clearly that the changes resulting from the transposition of this directive will ultimately benefit all the people of Europe and will also be experienced by them firsthand; they will not - as is often the case with other legislation - perhaps constitute an indirect benefit or not be entirely transparent.
This is a problem which it is highly probable that everyone in the European Union will experience once at some stage in their life, and then they will obviously benefit accordingly from the directive.
I think that this also needs to be mentioned explicitly here.
I should like to express my thanks to Mr Rothley, the rapporteur, for preparing this report so thoroughly and for taking the initiative - it was of course also Parliament from whom the initiative came at that time - but I would, however, also like to thank the Commission and the Council for agreeing to this in principle.
I do not, however, understand why the problem which has been mentioned here should continue to exist, because so far I have not heard one single comprehensible argument against accidents involving EU citizens in third countries being included in this directive.
So far every argument against this has been unsatisfactory.
Sometimes it is simply incorrect information - this also became clear in the last debate in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, as far as the attitude of the insurance industry is concerned.
I would simply ask the Commission and the Council to make an effort in this matter and go along with Parliament's position.
Since the trialogue's preliminary discussion was inconclusive, at present we simply have no choice but to insist on our good and reasonable amendments and to adopt them once more here at this second reading.
This will then give the Council and the Commission the opportunity to be more shrewd in the conciliation procedure.
They should use that opportunity!
Mr President, this directive is the first case where the European Commission is responding with an initiative to a request made by the European Parliament under the indirect power of legislative initiative conferred on it by the Treaty of Maastricht.
It is an important element in the interinstitutional balance because it shows that, when it asks the Commission, in accordance with the usual paths laid down by the Treaty, to carry out one of its well-founded requests, Parliament will find the Commission to be an attentive and willing partner in dialogue.
This is also in line with the demands made by Parliament and the Group of the European People' s Party in particular at the time of Romano Prodi' s appointment as President of the Commission.
I think that Mr Rothley' s report should be adopted in its entirety: it is a high-level compromise, the synthesis of a series of stimuli and innovative concepts, and the result of the cooperation between the various institutions.
I would like to talk for a moment about, for example Amendment No 4, which deletes Recital 26.
It is obvious, in fact, that, if a legal person, in the performance of one of its duties, should compensate a prejudiced party, it may not be denied the right of subrogation in the claims of the injured party against the compensation body.
Also, Amendment No 11 should be emphasised.
It is true, the problem remains of the accidents that occur in third countries: I hope that we can manage to find a solution that safeguards Parliament' s decision, which aims to extend the scope of the of the directive' s application to these cases but at the same time, without prejudice to the Council' s concerns regarding respect for the principles of international private law.
We should all work on this point, primarily the rapporteur, Mr Rothley, and the Chair of the committee, Mrs Palacio.
A future legislative initiative could address the insurance sector once again, in particular, regarding some degree of harmonisation of the regulations regarding the compensation of harm occasioned to persons, which is creating many disparities and injustices in the European Union.
The Spanish example, once suitably adapted, could be an interesting base to work from.
I invite everyone to carefully consider this.
. (NL) Mr President, the fourth directive on motor vehicles forms an important step in the process to fill the blanks in the EU directives on motor vehicle insurance and to reinforce the internal insurance market in this respect.
As you know, more than 500,000 car accidents occur within the Community every year.
The existing system for damages to EU victims of accidents which take place outside their country of residence, is inadequate.
A swift and pragmatic solution is required in order to protect a very large number of visiting car drivers.
I would like to extend a warm thanks to Parliament for having requested this directive.
This is the first occasion on which Parliament has used its new competences pursuant to Article 192 of the Treaty.
The Commission has fully backed this request and has urged swift approval of its proposal.
I would especially like to thank Mr Rothley for all his efforts to bring this debate and this directive to the point it has reached today.
The Commission is of the opinion that the common position established by the Council is well-balanced and coherent.
It faithfully represents the problems which have caused Parliament to press for EU legislation.
It adopts the salient points of the Commission' s proposal and takes account of 24 of the 36 amendments, either wholly or in part, which Parliament requested at first reading.
This is quite something.
In its reaction to the amendments proposed by the European Parliament' s Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, the Commission is mainly led by the ambition to bring about a legal instrument which meets all the requirements of the policy holders of an EU motor-vehicle insurance as effectively as possible.
I would now like to expand on the amendments.
I applaud Amendments Nos 10, 11 and 12, because they reinforce certain principles of the common position, such as the freedom of the insurer to choose a claims representative, the possibility of such a claims representative working for more than one insurer, as well as linguistic requirements.
I can also accept Amendment No 13 which promotes the reinforcement of consumer protection, although the word "immediately" used in this text needs to be elaborated on further in order to avoid discrepancies in the application of this provision by the Member States.
I would now like to concentrate on Amendments Nos 1, 2, 8 and 9 which have been submitted by the rapporteur and which are intended to further extend the directive to include accidents occurring in third countries between two parties resident within the European Union and who are covered by insurance taken out with EU insurance companies.
Allow me to remind you of the reasons which led the Commission to reject these amendments at first reading.
Firstly, the indemnity mechanism laid down in this directive and other directives on motor vehicle insurance is based on the green card system.
This cannot be extended to include third countries which do not take part in this system and which do not recognise the validity of European insurance agreements.
Insurance companies would not agree to cover these risks or would command extremely high premiums.
Whichever way, the authorities of third countries would require vehicles visiting from the EU to conclude insurance agreements with companies based on their territory, at the border.
Secondly, the application of the directive, especially the provision which offers the possibility of lodging a direct claim against insurance companies, may contravene rules of law of third countries concerning legal liability and international private law, particularly when the direct claim is not recognised under these rules of law.
Thirdly, these amendments would lead to incompatibility with Article 5(3) of the directive concerning the information centre and Article 7 concerning the impossibility of identifying the vehicle or the insurance company.
These four amendments concerning accidents in third countries, in my opinion, cannot be accepted at this stage and in their current form.
In the event that a consultation procedure proves to be inevitable, the Commission can consider extending the scope of the directive, taking the above into account.
I would like to make another comment regarding this possible extension.
As already stated, this directive is based on the green card system.
There are 39 countries who take part in this system.
Of these 39 countries, alongside the European Union, alongside the fifteen Member States, there are also six countries which have signed the multilateral guarantee agreement.
These countries are Switzerland, which is of key importance because many accidents occur there, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia and Slovenia.
These are six countries, in other words, which form a sub-group of the group of countries which participate in the green card system.
In an attempt to meet the wishes of the European Parliament, the Commission is prepared to back a compromise proposal, whereby the directive, at least the scope thereof, is extended to include the countries mentioned by myself but not to include other countries.
It will be clear that if a French and a Belgian driver, both from EU Member States, have an accident in Australia, for example, and a dispute arises between the insurance companies which cover these two drivers, it would be extremely awkward to allow direct action at the location where the accident, far removed from the European Union, took place under circumstances which are hard to verify.
As far as this is concerned, the Commission, and I refer to the position also adopted by the Council in its viewpoint, can hardly meet the requirement of the European Parliament as quite remarkably and extremely skilfully expressed by Mr Rothley.
We are not in a position to do this.
But perhaps the MEPs and the rapporteur, in particular, could take my last point into consideration and we could then see to what degree the scope of this directive could be extended to include the six countries mentioned by myself.
At the end of the day, Mr President, the directive as it stands, its current scope being the European Union, already covers 99% of accidents.
If you add Switzerland and the five above-mentioned countries, then I think that we are not far off the one hundred percent mark. I would strongly urge Parliament to consider accepting the Commission' s helping hand and to take advantage of the Commission' s proposal to extend the scope to include the six countries mentioned by myself.
After all, Mr President, each compromise must clearly identify the third countries to which the directive can actually be extended.
Moreover, we must avoid any solution contravening third-country legislation.
Mr President, I would now like to comment on the remaining amendments.
The Commission is of the opinion that the draft amendments prejudice the legal security of the proposal and will have a detrimental effect on those insured.
This is not intended, of course.
I will run through them very quickly.
Amendment No 3 is said to omit references necessary to rule out conflicts with national rules of law.
Amendments Nos 4, 5, 6, 14, 15 and 16 are said to leave out certain considerations and provisions which aim to guarantee legal security, transparency and financial security of the imported redress mechanism.
By incorporating Amendments Nos 7, 17 and 18, a key component would be deleted on which all car insurance guidelines are based, namely the reference to the agreement between national bodies of indemnity as a basis for the redress mechanism.
Finally, Mr President, Amendment No 19 has dropped a general provision which is proposed for reasons of consumer protection and subsidiarity.
I therefore have to inform Parliament that the Commission is of the opinion that the proposed Amendments Nos 3 to 7 and 14 to 19 are a step backwards from the point of view of an effective legal instrument of the European Union.
For this reason, the Commission has to reject these amendments.
By way of conclusion, the Commission wishes to remind everyone how much progress we have made with this proposal.
The common position satisfactorily guarantees that damages are paid for the vast majority of accidents involving EU citizens outside their country of residence.
I have already mentioned this but would very much like to reiterate this.
According to the Commission, the common position, which has come about so thoughtfully, forms an important extension of the protection of insured parties within the European Union.
It is the Commission' s sincere wish to ensure that this proposal be transposed into Community legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Mr President, the Commission would like to assure Parliament that it will play an active and constructive role in facilitating a compromise in the event that the consultation procedure seems inevitable, which I, in fact, hope will not be the case.
I hope we will not have to resort to a consultation procedure. One dreads to think what this procedure might lead to.
Should we fail to reach an agreement, then this entire directive would be scrapped and this would be extremely regrettable.
I would like to convince the MEPs and Mr Rothley, in particular, of this fact.
Thank you, Commissioner, for your detailed answer.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at noon.
Heavy goods vehicles in Switzerland
The next item is the report (A5-0075/1999) by Mr Aparicio Sánchez, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the distribution of permits for heavy goods vehicles travelling in Switzerland (COM(1999) 35 - C5-0054/1999 - 1999/0022).
Mr President, two years after the negative result of the referendum in Switzerland on its integration into the European Economic Area, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate bilateral agreements with that country in the necessary fields.
The draft regulation which has now been submitted for Parliament' s approval complements one of the agreements that has been reached, specifically the one on the transport of goods and passengers by rail and road.
In accordance with this agreement, a maximum number of lorries from the Community weighing over 28 tonnes will be authorised to transit Switzerland until 2005, when this country, in aligning itself with Community law, will not require permits for lorries of up to 40 tonnes.
Thus, as soon as this regulation comes into force, the current situation, which does not allow lorries of more than 28 tonnes to travel through Swiss territory, will end.
In 2000, 250 000 permits have been allowed for lorries weighing over 28 tonnes with a full load registered in the European Union.
From 2001, permits will be granted for lorries weighing more than 34 tonnes, with free transit for those weighing between 28 and 34 tonnes.
This number will rise to 300 000 per year in 2001 and 2002 and to 400 000 per year in 2003 and 2004.
On the other hand, lorries allowed to transit empty has been fixed at 220 000 per year.
The current regulation - which I think is totally correct - proposes a system for the allocation of these permits between the Fifteen Member States.
Each one will receive 1500 per year and the rest will be allocated according to current, real or theoretical figures for bilateral traffic and transit traffic.
I must express my reservations about two negative circumstances.
Firstly, the present proposal is being debated and voted on in this House before we know the overall Agreement with Switzerland so we are being asked to approve one part without knowing the whole thing.
Secondly, we lack reliable and up-to-date statistics on current flows of goods transport between Switzerland and the European Union even though this study is about to be completed and the same regulation lays down that in 2000, the current allocation figures could be modified if the true figures differ significantly from those that are currently envisaged.
With regard to both of these factors, I think that the desire that this regulation which must be adopted by the codecision procedure should come into force on the same day as the Agreement, is a sufficient argument to explain the need for haste.
I declare my complete agreement with the basic issue, that is, with the proposed method of calculation for allocating the number of permits to the different Member States and that, given the circumstances, it is the most objective, rigorous and fair method possible.
Furthermore, the regulation lays down, as I said, a system for the annual allocation of any permits that have not been allocated.
It is to be hoped that in turn, each Member State will allocate the permits that it has been allocated with equally objective criteria to its hauliers.
By way of a summary, I shall give you some figures.
If we apply the proposed system, the distribution of the 1,650 000 permits allowing the circulation of heavy goods vehicles over the five years gives a result of 36% to Germany, 20.5% to Italy, 15.5% to France, 7.8% to the Netherlands, 6.6% to Belgium, 3.8% to Austria with the remaining 10% to be distributed amongst the remaining Member States.
Mr President, a few amendments put forward by the two Parliamentary Committees that have been debating the draft improve on some details and contribute to the overall fairness of the regulation and to the ease of managing it.
I think that it is very important that, as the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has decided by means of a vote, we maintain the Commission' s proposed minimum allocation of 1500 permits for each Member State.
I must point out that this number is very low, equivalent to two trips per day for each country, and that the total of all these permits to be allocated automatically over five years does not even represent 7% of the total.
I shall thus end by highlighting once again the overall quality of the draft project.
I congratulate the Commission on it and ask the honourable Members to approve this draft regulation.
Mr President, Commissioner, I would of course also have been glad if the Commissioner responsible for transport policy had been present, but I suppose that this is not possible.
What are we talking about here? We are not discussing transport policy today; we are discussing the worst aspect of a market economy, quotas.
How can we distribute what Switzerland has graciously allotted to us - all because the former Transport Commissioner was careless when he negotiated with the Swiss Minister for Transport on Europe's behalf - how can we share out these concessions amongst the Member States?
We need to be aware of this.
That is what this is all about.
The proposal tabled here by the Commission is actually quite shameful.
I should like to make that perfectly clear. Why do we need basic allocations?
Do we really want the same to happen with these quotas as we have seen happen with milk for at least the last ten years and for them to become tradable assets? I have already heard countries on the periphery of Europe say today that they will be glad if they can enter into quota-trading.
No, of course that cannot be the case!
The quotas belong to the European Union and they must also be returned to it.
Only the European Union has the right to reallocate them.
Surely it would be better to leave them where they belong - that is, where freight transport really takes place - rather than first scattering them in a happy-go-lucky fashion across all the Member States and then engaging in a laborious process of collecting them in again and reallocating them.
We ought to realise that this is not a sensible strategy.
I should also like to state quite clearly that overall the rapporteur has certainly produced a very good piece of work, and I should like to thank him for this.
However, I have to say that I would have been glad if, given the narrow majority - of one vote - which we had in the committee, the rapporteur and his group had shown a little more willingness to compromise because - and I am saying this quite clearly today - if, when we vote on Wednesday, our Amendment No 7 to reduce the basic allocations to 500 is not passed, we will vote against the whole report.
On this point, I would add that if our group, the PPE-DE, had not abstained in the committee we would not be having a debate now.
There was a majority against the report.
That is why I should like to ask that at long last we be prepared to negotiate on this and not dig our heels in and simply refuse to discuss anything with each other.
That is neither in the interests of those who have goods to transport either through or within Switzerland nor is it in the interests of the neighbouring countries.
When I consider that 30% of the traffic going through the Brenner Pass alone is traffic diverted from Switzerland, then surely we really must use the quotas here to ensure that the shortest route once again appears an advantage instead of placing an excessive burden on the surrounding countries, a burden which is far greater than any statistics show.
I should therefore like to ask that the time until midday on Wednesday be used for further discussions on a compromise.
I have abandoned the hard line I took in the committee, I have been willing to compromise on this and would be glad if this willingness to compromise were forthcoming from the other side; otherwise we will vote against.
Mr President, firstly I should like to thank Mr Aparicio Sánchez for the excellent report and also confirm that he has the full support of my group.
Of course, the issues mentioned by Mr Ferber were discussed; we simply reached a different conclusion.
Firstly, Mr Ferber, I should like to say quite clearly that this is about transport policy.
Of course this is about transport policy. You used the adjective "socialist" here and that is precisely the underlying problem.
Thank God the cat is now out of the bag and we know what this is all about.
What is happening here is that whenever a sensible policy is pursued, for example in the interests of the environment, it is simply labelled socialist, and the whole thing is thus discredited.
I believe that this is unacceptable.
This is about drafting transport policy.
Policy-making means taking decisions about the way in which the market can and should work, but of course under certain basic conditions.
This is what has happened here.
Secondly, this is about putting in place transitional arrangements.
As Mr Sánchez has already said, the transitional rules are a difficult phase in the process, in the course of which we have also tried to keep the Swiss on board.
The negotiations were long and hard.
I should like to say - not because it is a Commissioner from our side, I have expressed my thanks to enough Commissioners from the other side - that Mr Kinnock conducted tough and prolonged negotiations and that a good result emerged from them.
It is a good result, and you also mentioned yourself that this is not about making sure that some countries obtain assets, because if the countries cannot use these assets - as you put it - they go back to the European Commission - to Europe - and then have to be reallocated.
Speaking also as an Austrian, I would say that this is surely about reducing the amount of traffic transiting France and Austria.
This is of course not just traffic which originates in Austria or Germany; it is also traffic which has come, for example, from Greece and other parts of Europe.
For this reason I believe that this is a good report.
I should like to thank our colleague, Mr Aparicio Sánchez.
I also believe that the vote on the report here should be handled in the same way as it was in the committee.
Mr President, we have a saying at home that what God has divided by a mountain man should not join together by a tunnel.
I do not doubt that this is far too strict an interpretation of divine will, and the people of Europe agree. Over the course of many years they have removed many obstacles on the routes between them.
This has allowed people to get to know each other, boosted the economy, promoted tourism and given people an opportunity to live together.
The conclusion of this Agreement on transport with Switzerland means that after many years a dividing line across Europe will gradually be bridged.
This is to be welcomed, in spite of the problems which this process of course also entails.
This is good for the general public, who will now no longer, as they did in the past, have to take sometimes extremely long detours on roads which were in any case already congested and for which they also paid handsomely.
The new possibilities are also good for the people who live in the Alpine region and for the environment there, which has been seriously damaged by the so-called environmental transit traffic.
Of course there were, and still are, sensitive Alpine areas in Austria and France as well, not only in Switzerland, although obviously there are some there too.
As the process of implementing the Agreement on transport between the EU and Switzerland gets underway, we look forward to it being easier to cross the central Alpine region in the future.
We hope that the package of agreements between the European Union and Switzerland will perhaps also lead to Switzerland's becoming a member of the European Union.
However, above all we look forward to the proposed regulation making a significant contribution - in the short or long term - to a new, better, more efficient, but also humane and environmentally friendly transport policy in the Union.
Finally, with this in mind, I should also like to make an appeal in support of Mr Ferber's Amendment No 7.
He is proposing to delete - with no replacement - the first sentence of Annex 3, which states that "each Member State shall receive a basic allocation of 1500 permits" .
The geography of Europe is not such that each Member State has the same need to pass through Switzerland on the way from A to B. This solution is a bureaucratic nightmare.
Let us do away with it!
In his report the rapporteur, Mr Aparicio Sánchez, addressed the Commission' s proposal for a regulation which has been largely based on statistical evidence and concessions.
As regards the statistical evidence on which the proposed distribution of permits for heavy goods vehicles is based, the figures to date relating to foreign trade cannot possibly be correct since with the existing 28 tonne limit in Switzerland, long haul road transport, for example from Greece, is just not profitable and is therefore not practised.
It is just like distributing visual aids to a group of people, some of whom are blind, according to the amount of printed material they read per annum.
Obviously the blind, who would need visual aids more than the others, would get nothing simply because they do not and cannot read.
The situation is not helped by the fact that foreign trade and the use of transport services do not necessarily go hand in hand. For economic reasons, vast quantities of goods are exported in vehicles from other Member States and not from the Member State which produces them.
Of course, full liberalisation of the internal transport market makes it virtually impossible to keep tabs on all this.
Assessing the needs for transit permits is based on the current traffic flows through the Alpine Region, particularly through Austria, and takes no account of the fact that this traffic flow is largely regulated by the restrictive system of housepoints according to which other allocation quota for Member States have previously been calculated.
Mr Aparicio Sánchez obviously took this factor into consideration when drawing up his report, but, as we all know, the figures are only indicative in nature and are based on available existing figures; they do not accurately reflect the reality of the situation.
We should not forget either that the proposed changes are transitional in nature since the liberalisation of 40-tonne vehicles will only take effect from 1 January 2005.
Furthermore, it seems likely that the EU-Switzerland Agreement will not enter into force before 2001 or even later because of the procedures involved in the relevant areas, in which case the transitional period will be shortened significantly.
Mr Aparicio Sánchez has obviously studied the issue carefully using all the above figures and, together with other members of our committee, has come up with some substantial improvements.
The return for reallocation of any unused permits by 15 September instead of 15 November as the Commission had proposed, will ultimately reduce the possibility of unfairness in the final distribution, which must be based solely on real needs and will help companies plan their operations better.
I would like to thank the rapporteur for his sterling work and we should honour him by approving his report.
As regards the agreement concerning the report under discussion, and any other agreement with Switzerland for that matter, where will they lead? Perhaps when a final agreement for Switzerland' s accession has been ratified, all this will no longer be an issue to us.
Thank you for listening so late in the evening to my maiden speech in this Chamber and I wish you all the best for the new millennium.
Mr President, the transit of goods and people through Switzerland has been a major problem for many years.
Following intensive work by the Commission, especially by rapporteur Mr Aparicio Sánchez whose efforts we have cause to be grateful for, we now have the opportunity of obtaining an agreement for heavy goods vehicles, which is extraordinary progress.
In the future, it will be a question of achieving more such agreements between the EU and Switzerland, and in connection with other types of vehicle too.
However, the agreements on which we can now adopt a position on behalf of the EU concern transit through Switzerland for lorries of 40 metric tons.
It could presumably be argued that the fee payable for this kind of vehicle is high.
Before the year 2000, it amounts to CHE 180.
Clearly, this is expensive, but the cost of instead driving around Switzerland would presumably be a great deal higher.
This would also be a considerably worse alternative from an environmental point of view.
As I see it, there is only one significant weakness in the agreement, namely the allocation of the quotas which have been negotiated and which increase in the course of the years leading up to the agreement' s coming into force.
The proposal, which others too have considered, involves a basic quota which is the same for all countries.
The only problem is that certain countries have no need of such a large quota while others need access to a significantly larger one.
You have only to look at a map of Europe to realise that the flow of traffic from north to south signifies a great deal more for some countries than for others.
For countries such as Sweden and Finland, another system of allocation would be extremely significant.
Mr Ferber has tabled an amendment which involves our looking in a considerably more flexible way at the present allocation, and I support this amendment.
. (NL) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking both parliamentary committees and not least both rapporteurs, Mr Aparicio Sánchez and Mr Brunetta, for their time and effort invested in the proposal.
This motion for a resolution aims to establish a method for dividing two types of licences for trucks from the European Union which use the Swiss road network.
So this proposal encompasses a regulation and a number of licences, the so-called permits for heavy goods vehicles, and will for the first time offer the opportunity to carry out a prescribed number of journeys on Swiss territory using EU lorries of the maximum permissible weight of 40 tonnes.
The other type of permits, the so-called 'empty permits' , entitles lorries with a maximum weight of 28 tonnes to a prescribed number of journeys through Switzerland at a reduced toll tariff.
It gives me pleasure to be able to inform you that the Commission, which holds in high esteem the good work which both parliamentary committees delivered in this field, prepared as they are to compromise, can accept Amendments Nos 1 to 6 and Amendment No 8. This means all amendments but one.
However, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 7.
Mr President, Commission proposal intends to allocate 90% of the licences to the Member States which account for the lion' s share in Swiss traffic and at the same time, guarantee all Member States a basic quota of 1500 licences annually.
The amendment reduces this minimum quota to 500.
It is said that the outcome will benefit the quotas of the three major Member States which border Switzerland; to wit France, Germany and Italy.
So this would be to the detriment of the other Member States.
Since the licensing system contains a mechanism to distribute unused permits across the countries, I can reassure Parliament that there is no risk that permits allocated as part of the basic quota will be wasted or will go unused.
Consequently, the Commission would prefer it if all Member States were allocated the same minimum quota and, as such, cannot accept Amendment No 7.
Thank you, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 p.m.
Substances that deplete the ozone layer
The next item is the recommendation for second reading (A5-0077/1999), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the Council common position with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer (5748/3/1999 - C5-0034/1999 - 1998/0228) (Rapporteur: Mrs Hulthén).
Mr President, even though the time is getting on, I am pleased that we are finally to debate this recommendation for second reading. It is in fact a regulation which really needs to be adopted and implemented, for the situation we are facing is quite serious.
The depletion of the ozone layer is becoming more and more obvious.
The Commission' s first document describes the depletion over Scandinavia, Greenland and Siberia as being a record.
Unfortunately, we now probably have to say that this record has been beaten again.
Last week, measurements were presented which showed that the situation has never been more serious than it is now.
I would especially emphasise this for the benefit of those Members of the European Parliament who have had doubts about the value of hastening the phasing out of ozone-destroying substances.
I would also emphasise this for the benefit of other people who say that it costs too much to achieve so little as a percentage or two reduction in the depletion of the ozone layer.
That is not the case!
The hole in the ozone layer is not an invention. Nor is the fact that it is getting larger!
We therefore now have a unique opportunity with the adoption of this regulation and of the amendments to which the majority of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has said yes.
These measures are not enough to "repair" the hole in the ozone layer, but they are a step in the right direction which it is necessary to take.
We are aware of the causes of the problem, we are aware of the consequences and, in the vast majority of cases, we also have alternatives.
In those cases where there are no alternatives, the regulation provides acceptable margins for industry to succeed in making the required transition.
It is we who are to decide whether this is to become a reality.
I would emphasise that this proposal is not an attempt to prevent alterations to on-going climate change.
Arguments of this kind have been put forward but, as far as I am concerned, these are just attempts to cloud the issue.
We need to solve both problems.
A number of the substances which are nowadays used as replacements for the HCFC substances that the debate has come to revolve around have an effect upon the environment.
So too, however, have the substances we use today, a fact of which we are well aware.
There is therefore no reason for reintroducing the HCFC substances into processes in which they have been prohibited for the last five years.
This is taken up in Article 5(3) in the Council' s common position, of which I am strongly critical.
There is a ban in place, and relaxing this can hardly be in keeping with the objective of the regulation. I would therefore address the Commission and ask if they are really serious about this.
Large parts of industry operating in this sphere have already adapted their production methods and found alternatives, and yet the European organisation for this branch of industry, EUROFEU, is quite unable to see the point of the change.
I would ask the Commission why.
What is behind this U-turn? I hope that, in its vote on Wednesday, the House will comply with the proposal of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection to remove this Article in its entirety.
In this connection, I would also mention Amendment No 34 which has been introduced into the plenary sitting.
As far as I am concerned, this proposal is just as unreasonable.
The other matter I consider to be crucial to this regulation, if it is to be forward-looking, is the continued use of methyl bromide.
We know that methyl bromide is one of the biggest villains where the ozone layer is concerned.
It is also a very poisonous substance which affects those who work with it and which does not only exterminate unwanted noxious insects but also all organisms in the earth.
It affects water, air and people.
The time is ripe for a ban.
Moreover, we have for a long time now had alternatives available in this sphere which are in many cases much more profitable than what we make use of today.
I would therefore emphasise the importance of Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4 and 10 which reduce the opportunity for continued use of methyl bromide, except in certain extreme circumstances.
I would also mention Amendment No 12 concerning quarantine arrangements in connection with shipments.
The regulation does not provide for any clear phasing out of these.
I would also direct the House' s and the Commission' s attention to Amendment No 9 which provides the opportunity to use chloroflourocarbons in certain extremely special cases, for example to offer pain relief to people who are seriously ill.
I should also like the Commission to review the narrow time limits which are given in the regulation.
The discussion of this matter has, however, been delayed. In this context, I would therefore put in a word for the small and medium-sized companies which have done their utmost to comply with the intentions of the regulation but which have nonetheless still not achieved their objective.
A certain understanding of the situation in which they find themselves is to be desired.
At the plenary sitting, further amendments were also tabled which have not been adopted or discussed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection; one of these I have already mentioned.
These are Amendments Nos 30, 31, 32 and 34, which are scarcely in keeping with the regulation.
I would put a question mark over Amendment No 32, which has clearly been mistranslated both in the Swedish version and in other versions.
I would therefore move the rejection of these amendments.
Amendment No 35 is covered by Amendment No 39 and is therefore superfluous.
Otherwise, applause for all the amendments which the majority of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has adopted.
Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal.
I do not wish to repeat it all.
She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time.
I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected.
Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly.
I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek - as your amendments do - to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back.
As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly.
But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this.
I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all.
The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union's conscience.
This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry - and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies.
With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail.
It is Amendment No 34.
Halons are very dangerous.
HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion.
Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one.
We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage.
Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach?
You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs!
There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen.
Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library.
We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances.
I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes.
Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon.
You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today's emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years' time.
In thirty years all of us - or many or most of us - will already be dead.
But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.
Mr President, I would firstly like to say how much I admired the work of the rapporteur as regards this report; it was difficult enough bringing it through Parliament first reading.
It has been even more difficult at second reading as we have had a lot of competing views, conflicting scientific opinion and lobbying from various interested parties in the industry on specific substances.
Nevertheless, the rapporteur has done a marvellous job and what we have in front of us now is a coherent set of amendments, a coherent position that goes further than the common position, further than Mrs Flemming thinks we can go.
I am surprised at what she says as we went further than the common position a week ago in Beijing.
We must give it our support.
There are very serious issues at stake here.
If the ozone layer is not repaired as quickly as possible and damage halted, there will be widespread skin cancer, widespread eye damage among the human population around the world.
This is already starting to happen in some places.
We, as Europeans, have to maintain our lead and set an example.
There can be no going back on any particular substances, despite some pleading to do so.
We can only allow the continued use of certain other substances where there is a genuine threat of smuggling into the Union of other supplies that might be used to continue supporting existing equipment.
We must recognise that the Montreal Protocol has progressed step by step.
Last week we saw it take another step in Beijing.
We have moved on to getting rid of CFCs, moving on to deal with the other substances - HCFCs and halons.
We must continue to ensure that process carries on.
In the European Union we must help in assisting Third World and developing countries to move quickly into new technologies that do not harm the ozone layer, that do not use ozone-destroying chemicals.
In that sense, we must support the rapporteur's amendments and look very carefully at some of the amendments which I hope we will see in conciliation in order to achieve further progress.
Mr President, through mankind's own folly we have damaged the ozone layer which protects life on this planet and now we must do everything we can to undo that damage.
There has been very little opposition to the principle of phasing out HCFCs and methyl bromide.
The question in committee has been about the timescales which should be involved.
All Members have been presented with a great deal of conflicting factual information which has made reaching a judgement difficult.
Like the rapporteur, the Liberal Democrats want to ensure that rapid progress is made, that we see the maximum benefits in the shortest possible period.
But the choices are not simple.
There is a real fear that some of the well-intentioned amendments which have been tabled by the rapporteur may actually make the situation worse; in particular, that it will make it difficult for us to phase out across the world, and especially in the developing nations, the harmful CFCs which are so much more detrimental to the ozone layer than the items mentioned in this report.
The benefits to be gained from these proposals are too small for us to take that risk.
We support the rapporteur's aims and will be supporting most of her amendments but we are not convinced that she has addressed our concerns for the environment in their entirety.
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mrs Hulthén on her work on this report.
Action to tackle ozone layer degradation is considered to be one of the very few success stories of international environmental legislation, and since the mid-1990s ozone depletion does seem to have slowed down, mainly due to efforts to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances.
But there is no room at all for complacency.
We are a long way from achieving our goals.
According to the European Environment Agency, in the summer of 1998 the ozone over Antarctica reached a record low level over an area the size of Europe, and the same thing is happening in the northern hemisphere.
So ambitious targets must be set and they must be met.
The Commission's original proposal is along the right lines.
However, we believe that the Council weakened the text and so I would like to call on colleagues to support the amendments which were adopted in committee to improve the common position.
Mr President, as late as about a week ago, an alarming new report came out about the depletion of the ozone layer.
This time, a study shows that the protective layer of ozone has reached worrying and record-low values over Scandinavia.
We know what we need to do.
Where this particular environmental issue is concerned, we know what is causing the problems.
We know precisely which substances destroy ozone.
We know what the effects will be upon people if levels of ultra-violet radiation increase, including effects in terms of significantly more cases of cancer.
We also know how the natural environment is being damaged.
What is more, there are nowadays perfectly acceptable alternatives to the vast majority of ozone-depleting substances, and these are used in a variety of spheres.
Ozone-destroying substances have a deleterious effect over a very long period.
In spite of the fact that international cooperation in this area through the Montreal Protocol has been successful and that emissions have declined considerably, it will not be possible for the ozone layer to be restored before some time round about the year 2040 at the earliest.
Until this happens, it is estimated that there will also be an increase in the damage caused, for example in the form of new cases of cancer.
There is, then, no good reason for postponing further measures which we can take right now. It is therefore important that Mrs Hulthén' s report be adopted in its entirety.
By means of the proposals submitted in this report, more powerful measures can be taken against ozone-destroying substances such as methyl bromide and chloroflourocarbons.
Our group is therefore going to vote in favour of all the amendments from the rapporteur.
On the other hand, we are not going to vote in favour of most of the amendments which have been put forward by others, because these amendments would weaken the report.
In the Committee, the Group of the European People' s Party and European Democrats voted against many of the rapporteur' s proposals.
There has also been vigorous lobbying by industry on this issue.
Hopefully, national declarations exist, or else there are individuals within the Group of the European People' s Party and European Democrats who put environmental considerations first and who will have the courage to vote in favour of the important proposals in the report.
It will be interesting to see the results of the vote.
Mr President, partly thanks to the Montreal Protocol, ozone-depleting substances can be phased out quickly.
This will not take the desired effect i.e. filling the ozone hole until 100 years from now.
We also hope that the number of cases of skin cancer will have dropped.
As was already the case at first reading, the phasing-out process can be accelerated.
There are alternatives available and the benefits clearly outweigh the drawback of transitional costs.
I therefore support the proposals submitted by Mrs Hulthén to improve the common position.
CFCs and methyl bromide can be phased out more quickly.
In the Netherlands, the use of methyl bromide has been banned for years.
This does not pose any problems within the agricultural sector.
Quite the opposite, in fact. There is no loss of harvest and it is better for the health of the workers within agriculture and horticulture.
It must be possible to stop using methyl bromide as from 2001.
Hence, exceptions for emergency situations seem completely redundant.
Mr President, I think that in this final debate, before voting on this regulation, the following points must be stressed:
My country, Spain, fully enters into the spirit of the Montreal Protocol and is committed to fulfilling its terms in a completely responsible and active way.
It accepts, in general terms therefore, the common position and in this sense, I fully agree with the intervention by my colleague Mrs Flemming.
Nevertheless, this is no obstacle to Spain, with its firm desire to carry out the eradication of the use of specific toxic substances that damage the ozone layer, which regards itself as being particularly affected by the banning of one of them, methyl bromide, which was referred to a while ago.
This substance, which is used as an agricultural disinfectant mainly in clearly defined farming zones in the Mediterranean regions is already strictly limited in my country in terms of its marketing and use and has already been replaced in all cases for which suitable alternatives have been found.
Work has been done for quite a while on investigating replacement substances in order to meet the deadline laid down in the Protocol.
Precisely because we want to comply with the standard, we have to be very careful when it comes to weighing up our ability to do so, if Parliament approves a regulation that makes the conditions and the time-scales tougher.
It would be more honest and above all more practical to state clearly that we see that there is a possibility that we will not be able to comply where methyl bromide is concerned.
At the very least this will cause us to suffer serious financial and social consequences and the competitiveness of some of our agricultural products will be damaged in relation to other countries that do not apply the same restrictions.
We will not be able to ensure that the use of methyl bromide stops by shortening the time-scales. Instead, we run the risk of unwillingly failing to comply and the possibility of fraud which will produce the opposite result to the one we all want to see.
Therefore, the Spanish delegation of the European People' s Party feels that it is necessary to uphold in the plenary sitting the amendments relating to the first paragraph of Article 3(2) and the last paragraph of Article 21 in which the exceptions and conditions for the use of methyl bromide after 2006 are specified.
We think that Parliament must set standards that all Member States should be able to fulfil without experiencing serious damage to their economic, social and environmental conditions.
It is this spirit, not an emotionally praiseworthy but unrealistic environmental good will, which leads us to put forward these amendments today.
Mr President, there is no doubt that the regulation in question is extremely important.
With this regulation, the European Union is establishing the means and time periods for the progressive elimination of the substances which deplete the ozone layer, and I can assure you that I do not underestimate the danger of the current situation at all.
The drive to further speed this up, set in motion by Parliament at first reading, has been broadly accepted by the Council.
Despite this, Mrs Hulthén' s report again re-submits amendments which were not adopted, which indiscriminately anticipate the dates of bans on the production, marketing and use of the various substances.
In general, it is a question of an approach, or rather, a commendable intention consistent with the Montreal Protocol which, however, at the same time, does not take some facts into account: firstly, the fact that the other countries that are signatories of the Protocol, including the United States, anticipate longer time periods for ending the production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons; secondly, hydrochlorofluorocarbons are, given the current state of knowledge, the only real alternative in the field of fire-fighting, to halogens, the main destroyers of the ozone layer, which are still widely used in developing countries.
We are not convinced either, by the inflexibility that the report wants to maintain regarding methyl bromide.
I am sorry that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection did not want to seek a reasonable compromise based on the principle of realism.
At times, we have the impression that, according to one interpretation of protecting the environment, the asserting of principles, if not flying the environmental flag, is ultimately more important than the actual result.
The European Union has to be at the cutting edge, it has even been said this evening, but, as regards restoring the ozone layers in the stratosphere, and similarly, controlling the greenhouse effect, the result cannot be measured on the basis of Europe' s speed, but only by taking an overall view.
For these reasons, the common position of the Council, even if it is not completely satisfactory, certainly seems more balanced.
Mr President, to avoid further destruction of the ozone layer we need above all to restrict our remaining exemptions.
An exemption of this kind is granted for CFC-11 to the firm Du Pont in Luxembourg for the manufacture of polyolefin fibres.
Du Pont itself has developed an alternative to CFC-11.
This alternative is currently being examined by the competent authorities in Luxembourg.
There is therefore no reason at all to continue to maintain this exemption.
I would therefore ask you, in particular Mrs Flemming and the other Members of the PPE-DE Group, to vote for Amendment No 28.
We are not dealing with a developing country here; this is sophisticated technology in a highly developed country.
Environmentalists in Luxembourg have campaigned for this exemption to be abolished. The Environment Minister is behind them.
If we in the European Parliament do not vote for this then the people of Luxembourg will have the feeling that Europe is a step backwards rather than forwards.
Mr President, increased levels of ozone and UV radiation have become risk factors throughout the world in which we live.
I agree with the rapporteur that the effects of this are now clearly visible.
Preserving the ozone layer is one of the main aims of our environment policy.
We are all responsible for preventing damage to mankind and animals as well as to the entire ecosystem.
That is why substances which destroy the ozone layer need to be replaced with alternative substances as quickly as possible.
However, realistic transitional periods need to be set for switching to alternative substances.
I wish to stress the word "realistic".
Where it is clear that alternative substances are available which do the same job, the procedure needs to be carried out within the period prescribed.
However, there are exceptions too and we also need to have a clear picture when we address these.
In the chemical industry certain refrigeration equipment is indispensable for processes of chemical manufacturing.
These refrigeration units are self-contained cooling systems and use a coolant for which no alternative is available at the present time.
The size and complexity of self-contained cooling systems also make it necessary to grant an exemption.
That is why I have tabled Amendment No 30 to the report, and I would ask for this to be taken into consideration.
These cooling systems - I should like to point out once more - are self-contained systems and the coolant does not penetrate into the atmosphere.
Mr President, I would like to express my disappointment and regret, and in saying this, I think I am speaking for the way other Members from the first legislative phase feel.
At the second reading stage, the Members from the first legislative phase cannot make any contribution to improving the content of provisions which will then be adopted by Parliament, which clearly creates a deep sense of frustration.
But this frustration becomes deeper still, more bitter when, in the light of new scientific evidence, such as in the case of ozone-depleting substances, bureaucracy and emotion take priority over politics and science, and do not render admissible amendments that are new and sound from a scientific point of view.
This is why I am asking all the Members to adopt Amendment No 34, already tabled in committee by Mr Bowis and Mr Sacconi and signed today by 32 Members.
The amendment that we intend to have adopted regarding the inflexible and closed position of the rapporteur, Mrs Hulthén, and those who blindly support her, calls for a short postponement, until 1 January 2004, of the ban on HCFCs in fire protection systems.
These substances exhibit a very low potential for depleting the ozone - 1200 times less than halons - and they are much better tolerated by the environment than substances such as HFCs and PFCs, which are unfortunately permitted by Parliament despite the fact that they are more detrimental to the environment because they have a high potential for global warming and linger in they atmosphere, for as long as six to seven thousand years.
These conclusions are shared by high-level scientific bodies at international level, such as the Cairo Conference of 1998, the contracting parties of the Montreal Protocol, the Panel on Ozone Depletion of 1999 and the Ministry for the Environment of Great Britain.
The gradual banning of HCFCs called for in the amendment, along with the well-founded scientific reasons, also recognises social reasons, because a lot of people risk losing their job.
This is why I am asking for your support.
I should like to thank the Committee on the Environment and especially the rapporteur, Mrs Hulthén, for its careful consideration of the common position.
Many of the amendments are designed to accelerate the phase-out schedules for HCFCs and methyl bromide, an objective which the Commission certainly shares in the light of their significant and increasing contribution to ozone depletion.
European SMEs which are leading in the development of the alternatives have proved that rapid phase-out of remaining ozone depleting substances promotes sustainable industries and additional ozone layer protection.
Complex negotiations in the Council led to the adoption of an acceptable common position last February.
Its quick adoption is the Commission's priority.
The Commission cannot go as fast as it would like in some issues, as we are rapidly approaching some of the proposed phase-out dates.
It is important to avoid the introduction of the new ozone depleting substances.
Amendment No 27 would introduce an expedited procedure for adding new ozone depleting substances to the regulation, which would be useful in deferring unwise investments while benefiting the ozone layer.
The Commission can therefore accept this amendment in principle.
Amendment No 9 is also acceptable since it allows time-limited extensions for the use of very small quantities of CFCs in a specialised type of medical devices for pain relief.
Other amendments that the Commission accepts, either totally, in principle or in part, are Amendments Nos 1, 4, 11, 12, 15, 17, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32 and 35.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2 and 10 as they would bring forward the first cuts in production and use of methylbromide to unrealistically early dates - 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2001 respectively.
This would cause procedural difficulties and problems for farmers.
Similarly, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 3 which would remove any exemptions beyond 2006.
This would penalise individual farmers or certain crops disproportionally.
Strict controls on HCFC production and trade with non-parties to the Montreal Protocol are part of the Community ozone policy.
Two weeks ago, in the Beijing meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol, the Community succeeded in introducing such measures into the Protocol.
However, excessively harsh measures going beyond the common position could shift the market to overseas producers.
Amendments Nos 5, 6, 7, 8 and 23 advancing the phase-out schedule and imposing an immediate trade ban cannot therefore be accepted.
There are several amendments that bring forward the controls on HCFC uses.
The current position represents a careful balance between what is environmentally desirable, technically feasible and economically achievable.
The Commission cannot, therefore, accept Amendments Nos 13, 14 and 16 which would tighten the deadlines further for the phasing out of HCFC use in solvents, air conditioning and polyurethane foams.
This could bring increased problems and lead to cash flow problems for companies.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 18 and 34 on the possible use of HCFCs as a replacement to halons in fire fighting.
Expanding it is unnecessary and limiting it is of little, if any, practical consequence.
Such changes would affect a crucial part of the common position compromise.
Amendment No 28 relates to Article 5 and bans the use of CFCs and HCFCs as a processing agent immediately in a specific application.
The Commission cannot accept this amendment because there is a need to provide for transitional time for phase-out.
Nor can the Commission accept Amendment No 19 banning sales of used HCFC-containing equipment within five years after the respective use ban as it would increase the probability of illegal dumping and venting of HCFCs to the atmosphere.
While the Commission has sympathy for Amendment No 20 that would ban the production of HCFC-containing products for export over the three years after respective domestic use ban, we have to maintain the balance between environmental desirability and the risk that manufacturing would relocate elsewhere.
The Commission cannot therefore accept it.
Similarly, while we support the intention of Amendment No 21, it would be incompatible with the exemption in Article 5(6) for specific cases and therefore cannot be accepted.
Furthermore, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 22 as exemptions would in any case be granted in full consultation with Member States, and thus it cannot accept it.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment No 30 which seeks to expand the possibilities to grant exemptions for substances that have already been phased out.
It is important to send the unambiguous message that when a substance is phased out no further exemptions should be allowed except those that qualify as essential uses.
Finally, may I thank Parliament for its work and careful consideration of the common position.
Thank you, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at noon.
Labelling of foodstuffs produced using GMOs
The next item is the motion for a resolution (B5-0313/1999), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the follow-up to Parliament' s opinion on labelling of foodstuffs produced using genetically modified organisms.
I do not know about you, but its seems to me that this evening is rather reminiscent of the Titanic.
I have a horrible feeling that the whole ship is sinking.
I hope that I am not right, but if we go on like this, perhaps we should join in a chorus of "Nearer my God to Thee", standing in the middle and singing it.
I hope, when the Commission replies, that the Commissioner will be kind enough to reply to the debate in English.
It is extremely helpful when he does so, because this is an issue where a number of us have constituents who are very anxious to find out what is going on, and it is extremely helpful if he can reply in English if at all possible.
This is a deeply unsatisfactory issue dealt with unsatisfactorily by the Commission.
Parliament's Environment Committee has put together a short resolution in order that Members can debate it with the Commission and we can attempt to get some clarification from them.
It is unsatisfactory in the approach that the Commission has had to adopt and indeed in the content of the proposal coming before us.
What we are doing this evening is commenting on a draft Commission regulation.
There is no chance for the European Parliament to propose amendments to it through our normal procedures.
We can only object and if we do object, that would hold up agreement.
We do not really want to hold up such agreement, so we are taking this opportunity of having this debate.
We underline in the motion before you that we believe that this kind of issue should be dealt with in future through the codecision procedure.
In fact, members of the committee find that the whole European Union approach to genetically modified food at the moment is in a rather confused state.
Indeed we have a number of Commissioners who seem to be dealing with it, although Mr Liikanen is taking the lead.
Legislation has been brought forward piecemeal.
We have already had the novel foods regulation, but this is another part of the jigsaw.
We feel that consumers may well be very confused about exactly what the European Union is proposing and how it will impact on them and on the food that they eat and the labels that they read.
There is still nothing from the European Commission on the labelling of genetically modified material when it is contained in animal feed and we look forward to proposals on that.
On the whole, the committee received rather conflicting signals about the recommended maximum 1% content level.
I really would ask the Commissioner when he replies to the debate to take this opportunity to clarify as publicly as possible why the European Commission has chosen the 1% level.
I understand that the Commission was under considerable pressure to go for a much higher level, 5% was the level which some American interests wanted the Commission to go for.
On the other hand, there are some members of the committee who argue that a 0.1% level would have been perfectly feasible and pointed out that some supermarket chains around the European Union are insisting on a 0.1% level.
I believe that the Commission's answer to this is that the 1% level is the only level at which we can be absolutely sure that the testing methods are available so that they can be firmly based in Community law.
If that is the case, then how can supermarkets chains argue to us that a 0.1% level is perfectly feasible? Are the testing methods available, and what about the supermarkets claims?
The committee was so unhappy about this that it wanted to make absolutely clear to the European Commission that it wants to review of this proposal in short order.
I hope that the Commission will comment on the feasibility of this.
If the 1% level is found to be perfectly technically feasible, there are many in the Community who want to make sure that it is possible to review that level downwards, and we would like to have the Commission's view on that.
Finally, we turn to the question of enforcement and paragraph 6 of the resolution.
Can the Commission state absolutely certainly that it is going to be possible to apply this maximum 1% content level to very small quantities of ingredients? As we read the regulation, it says that the maximum 1% level may apply to ingredients of a product, not necessarily simply to the product as a whole.
If that is the case, we are looking at very small quantities indeed, and there are a number of members of the committee who feel that essentially this proposal that we are looking at tonight is unenforceable and represents another occasion where the European Commission has produced something which looks good but which will not actually work out in practice.
Mr President, first of all I would say that the Commission proposal is but a small part of the current legislative vacuum on the labelling of foodstuffs which contain or are produced from genetically modified organisms.
The labelling of these foodstuffs is important for two reasons.
Firstly, it is not known just how dangerous foodstuffs containing genetically modified organisms or their products are to public health and so it would be well worth monitoring their progress within the market. Secondly, it is important that consumers know exactly what they are buying.
Only then can we ensure the smooth operation of the market and win consumer confidence. The Commission has only really dealt with the accidental and, therefore, occasional presence of genetically modified foods and has set an arbitrary 1% tolerance level on just two products, soya and maize.
Granted this may be at least some progress but the question is this: is it really possible to measure and determine precisely what compound foods such as hamburgers and chocolates, contain and secondly, is it possible to accurately measure below the 1% content level? In my opinion, the Achilles heel of this regulation, which in itself will open the floodgates to corruption, violations and distortions of the law, is that it is impossible to assess exactly what compound foods actually contain and how much is derived from a genetically modified product.
We would have to think long and hard before adopting the Commission' s opinion. We expect to hear from you that through the codecision procedure you will review the proposal for a regulation as soon as possible in the light of new scientific and quantitative detection techniques so as to enable us to better address issues such as compound foods containing genetically modified organisms or their products.
I would like your opinion, Commissioner, as to whether you are indeed committed to reviewing this regulation soon, within 12 months, in the light of new data.
Only then will the Group of the European People' s Party be able to approve its adoption.
Mr President, I should like to begin by agreeing with Mrs Jackson that we are sinking, perhaps not as fast as the Titanic, but I understand this building is built on very soft ground.
It may happen long after we have left, but I am sure it will eventually sink into the mire it was built upon.
It has already flooded on the ground floor during construction.
I expect that will happen again before too long.
Getting back to the matter at hand, Mrs Jackson has essentially asked all the right questions in the right order.
This proposal was supported unanimously in committee because we believe something has to be done, and done quickly, to meet consumer demands for labelling and to meet consumers' justified concerns about knowing what they are eating.
The consumer has a right to know.
The Commission has made a brave attempt to put something on paper, limited in scope though it is, to help the consumer. I will support that.
But how practical is it?
Is it going to work? The 1% limit on any ingredient - which I and others have been informed is already being exceeded by supermarkets etc. in terms of their requirements for food - is also a limit which I am told can quite easily be met by anyone wishing to avoid having to label foods containing GMs, because of adventitious contamination, whatever that means.
It therefore seems to me that an early review is going to be extremely necessary.
The net result of this regulation will be, when we bring it in, that the vast majority of food in the supermarket will be exactly as it is now - unlabelled - because the vast majority of food may contain a small amount of GM, below the limit.
That will be what happens.
We are making a brave attempt here.
The Commission is making a brave attempt here.
I would like it to clarify exactly what the scope of its proposal is.
I am told that at the moment it only applies to those products derived from soya and maize.
I would like the Commission to tell me just how practical it thinks its measures are going to be and how quickly it will be able to change them if they do not work.
Mr President, it is Parliament' s intention to give consumers reassurance and also to provide a firm and clear legal framework for companies which work with GMOs.
The Commission' s regulation is not clear on either front.
Firstly, I would like to say that, to my mind, there is an injudicious use of terminology.
You are using the word contamination, whilst, in my opinion, what you mean to say is "presence" .
This is why I have submitted an amendment to our text to delete the word contamination.
Then there is also a lack of clarity, as mentioned by Mrs Jackson and Mr Bowe in this respect. Up to one percent is permitted in unforeseen circumstances, so by accident.
I would like to know from you what constitutes these unforeseen circumstances, when it is and is not permitted. How is this evidenced?
You also require proof.
I am wondering how this is done.
Case by case: how should I interpret this? So if, for example, a lorry has loaded 20 tonnes of corn, then 200 kg of this may be genetically modified corn.
This is one percent. Or is this not permitted?
So if a ship is loaded with 50,000 tonnes of soybean - I hear the largest ships can hold 50,000 tonnes - this may contain 500 tonnes, 500,000 kg of genetically modified soybean. Or have I got this wrong?
Do you then say: if there is only 500 tonnes of GM soybean in this ship that this ship is GM-free? I must say, this sounds rather absurd to me.
So I would like to find out from you what you mean by one percent in ingredients.
Where and when will you check this?
Under those circumstances, I do wonder if a label makes sense and the situation becomes completely absurd because the literature and circumstances show that a number of varieties can be imported and others cannot.
How can you check up on this because it may involve hundreds of tonnes of goods which you are unaware are being imported.
The Commission should take measures as a matter of urgency, clarify its proposals and shed more light on the whole matter.
If food companies wish to offer commodities to their customers which are GMO-free, they should be able to do this and this is not possible under the current circumstances.
Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, the questions have actually been asked, and there are a great many questions about this regulation.
We too welcome the fact that there has been some movement at last.
But it is regrettable that the Commission has only reacted to pressure - pressure from the Austrian Government - and has been proposing legislation piecemeal for years.
Where, for example, is the novel feed regulation? How, Commissioner, can you reconcile this with the new Commission slogan that there should be greater transparency, when for example more than 80% of soya production goes into animal feed?
I would have liked you to tell me this evening whether you are prepared to announce your support for a moratorium until we have a novel feed regulation.
Because anything else means misleading packaging with the result that our consumers are secretly sold quasi-genetically manipulated food under false pretences.
I would have liked to learn from you this evening how long these tactics of submitting to the pressure of the feed industry are going to last, or whether you are finally going to deliver on the promise which Mr Prodi made here of greater transparency for consumers.
Incidentally - but you know this already - we also think that the 1% is far too high.
The level ought to be at least as low as half, as this is possible to analyse.
If you are going to assume that there is unintentional contamination then, Mr Liikanen, you will have to explain to me how, in a shipload of soya, 3000 tonnes - that is 1% - becomes unintentionally contaminated!
I do not believe that this has anything, anything at all to do with it.
We expect you to do what you have already said you would do in the committee, which is to endorse Parliament's vote, finally invite everyone to a round table and propose a new threshold as quickly as possible.
Secondly, I expect a clear statement from you this evening on how long the Commission's delaying tactics on the novel feed regulation are going to last, and whether you consider it appropriate, with a view to consumers finally having a clear picture, to support this proposal - part of which was also of course drafted by the Council of Ministers - to declare a moratorium.
For I believe that this is the only way to achieve some degree of clarity here.
Mr President, this 1% GMO content limit which does not require labelling, presented here from a purely technical perspective, seems to be a very high level compared with the commitments already made by large-scale distributors.
So why is it 1%? In our opinion, the firms involved in the mass production and use of GMOs are seeking to establish a fait accompli by spreading GMOs across the whole of the food-processing market.
They are making it virtually impossible to set up sectors capable of offering consumers GMO-free products.
Next, it is impossible to guarantee that GMOs will not, in the long term, have any impact on public health and on the environment, especially given that mass production causes them to be dispersed throughout the countryside.
The social impact of the widespread distribution of GMOs has been clearly identified: producers and consumers will become ever more dependent on the giants in the food processing sector.
In our opinion, in order to foil the policy of the fait accompli, the maintenance of complete sectors of production without GMOs must be guaranteed.
Both producers and consumers must ultimately be able to identify whether the products they are using contain GMOs or not. Means for control exist.
They can be effective if the public authorities have the political will to use them.
As far as we are concerned, there is no justification today for the existence of a tolerable GMO level within which the risk would be zero or at least acceptable.
Mr President, the threshold value of 1% in the Commission proposal has one advantage: after years of lack of clarity, producers can no longer make their own interpretations.
But I also have some criticism: the percentage is not justified because it is apparently a political compromise.
A percentage to be selected must be achievable and acceptable.
At any rate much below 1, for example under 0.5%.
This is why I would ask the Commission to develop procedures to review the percentage in the very short term.
We have to prevent this 1% threshold value from becoming a precedent and being applied to the labelling of other products in future.
In addition, I find the undemocratic and non-transparent way in which the Commission dictates this standard unacceptable.
This is a topic for fundamental discussion which enjoys a wide popular appeal.
Furthermore, in this field, the codecision procedure must be applied to the introduction of these measures.
Legislation concerning genetically modified products should be transparent, should come about by democratic means and be coherent.
I support a democratic and comprehensive policy for genetically modified products.
With regard to labelling, I would like to note that it is time to give serious thought to the symbols used for GMOs.
Using minute phrases and words does not offer the consumer sufficient clarity.
A practical question addressed to Commissioner Liikanen concerns the recommendation of the Scientific Committee to draft a black list.
Does the Commissioner share the Committee' s opinion that it is impossible to do this?
Finally, I would like to point out to the Commissioner that standardisation alone does not suffice.
The European Commission and national governments should also apply other instruments to maintain the GMO-free chain.
I particularly have inspections in mind.
Mr President, Commissioner, since the coming into force of the novel food directive, the European Commission too has made a bit of a hash of things, to put it mildly.
This is how we would put it informally.
The European food industry is partly to blame for this because they were not prepared to make any concessions in the past.
Mr President, the argument which has led the Commission today to include the 1% level here in this implementation was the fact that that which was held impossible in the past, namely identification and detection under the one percent threshold as well, is now possible.
Mr President, because measuring methods are available.
This means that in fact, anything can be detected at present.
However, the regulation which is now in place means that we will soon have four types of food.
Firstly, GMO-labelled food; secondly, food which is not supposed to contain any GMOs; thirdly, the category with the maximum 1% tolerance level and fourthly, all the supermarket chains which say that they can guarantee 0.1% although with the best will in the world they could not even guarantee this 0.1% because even in the identity preserved-chain foods will always contain more than 0.1% of GMOs.
Mr President, this legislation shows up two deficiencies.
Firstly, regulations are not just in place for maize and soya.
I wonder when the rest will surface.
Secondly, as Mr Sterckx has already mentioned, the term 'contamination' will need to be replaced by 'presence' .
Mr President, I would also like to mention another issue.
Whatever will we be faced with next? At present, we are only dealing with food available to the consumer.
But if, for example, I consider the foodstuffs or the food for our livestock, then we would need to refer to this novel feed directive and I would also mention the comments made by Mrs Breyer.
Mr President, it would thus mean that if you know that all the proteins originate from abroad, say from South America, that you will soon also need to label absolutely everything with GMO identification within the framework of this novel food directive.
Mr President, I wonder if we have to put up with this Dancing Procession of Echternach for much longer?
I should like first of all to say that the proposed 1% limit is actually, in my view, a sign of capitulation.
It is in fact a very striking result of the fact that, for years, we have seen a lack of overview and cohesion in GMO legislation.
We have not made the necessary demands when it comes to distinguishing between GM material and non-GM material.
We are therefore now forced to accept a certain quantity of GM materials in all produce, without our being informed as consumers about these.
For the citizens of Europe, this really is quite a depressing development in terms of consumer policy.
I can support the present motion for a resolution, but I also think it is worth emphasising that the 1% limit set by the Commission is definitely too high.
It opens the way to carelessness and indifference on the part of suppliers and producers. There is every reason for thinking that the limit will be eroded in future.
I should therefore like to request four things of the Commission. Firstly, that a lower triviality limit than 1% be set.
If this is not desired, then a one-year review clause, as proposed here by Parliament, might at any rate be agreed to, in anticipation of reducing the triviality limit.
Thirdly, the claim of adventitious contamination due to GM materials must be carefully defined.
This is a very elastic concept that has been built into the proposal here, and I believe it needs to be defined very clearly.
Fourthly, and finally, I would ask that a very efficient supervisory system be established so that we might counter the worst examples of carelessness in this sphere.
I hope that Commissioner Liikanen will be able to respond positively to these four questions and requests.
Mr President, it is not enough that it cannot be proved that there is any risk from GM foods.
There must be clear advantages for consumers, and there must not be any danger to the environment or to animals' welfare.
It is, and remains, the legislators' task to establish rules and guidelines to ensure that the market develops in such a way that the concerns and requirements of consumers too are taken seriously, and that is not the case with the EU' s labelling requirement.
It has already been said many times now that a figure of 1%, set as the threshold value for the adventitious presence of GM materials in food, is way beyond what can and should be accepted as the triviality limit.
It is possible to separate GM crops both in the fields at harvest time, in the course of transportation and during processing.
This requires a good system of consultation from field to table and, therefore, higher costs too, but it can in fact be done.
If, against all expectations, this is not the case, then this is merely another argument for prohibiting the cultivation of GM crops.
The next best solution, involving GMO-free labelling, I regard as defeatist, except as a supplementary, voluntary option.
Until now, GM foodstuffs have only had advantages for producers.
The costs of labelling and supervision should therefore be borne by the producers of GM foods.
The risk in eating the products and the long-term consequences for environmental and biological diversity ought to go on being investigated.
A direct result of this is the de facto moratorium which five countries have introduced into the EU' s procedure for approving new licences to release genetically modified organisms to the environment and which is to remain in force while the relevant directive is being revised.
I am therefore surprised at the reports that Commissioner Wallström does not want to wait for the final revision but has instead backed industry' s offer to comply with the revised GMO Directive even before it is adopted.
This is a treacherous attack on the Member States' moratorium. Moreover, the Council of Ministers' common position does not go far enough.
All I can do, therefore, is call upon the Member States to stick to the moratorium.
It is imperative that the GMO legislation should be revised and tightened up - and preferably now rather than in the future.
Mr President, this is obviously a very important issue that needs to be addressed with some urgency.
Not only do consumers need to be reassured, but the industry also needs a climate of certainty within which to operate.
May I say that I speak with a background in the industry, though since joining this House I have of course severed all ties with it.
In my previous life I was managing director of a snack food company that made tortilla chips.
It also made an excellent British delicacy called pork scratchings - which I just toss in so as to keep the interpreters on their toes.
Tortilla chips are made of 100% American maize; and certainly when our customers asked for guaranteed GM-free identity-preserved maize, we had very great difficulty in securing that.
All the tests we did, in testing that was widely and commercially available, showed even such maize occasionally contained between 1 and 2% adventitious GM material.
So to those such as Mr Bowe who say 1% is a target that can easily be met, I say from experience that it cannot easily be met.
It is a very challenging target.
I believe that the industry has accepted that target, but with some trepidation.
If that target is reduced, what is quite likely to happen - because industry will not meet it - is that increasingly it will just label everything 'May contain GM material' - which completely undermines the purpose of this labelling.
That is the first point I would make: the target is already tough.
The second point regarding a review is that the industry needs certainty: so constant changes every 12 months are no good for the industry, and indeed confusing for the consumer.
The final point, going back to a point that Mrs Jackson made to begin with, is that we must ensure, when labelling comes in, that equal rules are applied with certainty across the EU.
As we approach a new millennium, maybe we can start a new trend towards ensuring that such laws will be universally enforced and applied.
Thank you for this important discussion even though the circumstances are not the best at the moment.
This subject has already been discussed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on 15 November.
I stated then that it is not only an issue of whether we like or authorise GMOs or not or whether we label them or not.
We are simply trying to implement the existing legislation and make it operational.
With the proposal amending Regulation No 1139/98, laying down a de minimis threshold for the adventitious presence of authorised GM material, we are responding to the Council's mandate on labelling of GM foodstuffs.
The Commission was obliged to do so at the time of adopting the regulation.
The draft aims to solve the problem of labelling foods when operators have tried to avoid using GM material and can prove this but nevertheless small amounts of GM material are found in them.
This adventitious contamination can occur during cultivation, harvest, transport, storage and processing.
After our consultations with the Joint Research Centre and Member States in particular we concluded that a value of 1% is a compromise that best serves two things: firstly, the purpose of establishing a very low tolerance level which implies an effort for operators; secondly, that it takes into account the necessary feasibility along the production chain.
We will shortly have methods that do not pose competent authorities unjustified problems for implementation.
I would also like to mention that this value is stricter than thresholds applied by other countries like Switzerland, Norway and Japan.
As you know, unlike the EU, the United States of America and Canada have no compulsory labelling of GM foods.
The wish of the committee is that we should reassess this issue.
I am ready, on behalf of the Commission, to make a commitment: "The Commission will review the draft regulation amending Regulation 1139/98 within one year of its entry into force.
The Commission will propose any necessary amendments in the light of improvements in quantitative detection techniques and practical experience gained with implementation of the proposed 1% value.
Moreover, the White Paper on food safety will also allow the opportunity of a wide debate on labelling if it is wished by the European Parliament."
The Commission has not exceeded its executive powers by proposing these regulations.
The two draft measures are consistent with current legislation.
We will use the codecision procedure when the European Parliament calls for the GMO-free scheme.
So far as the novel food regulation is concerned, Mr Byrne's department is preparing a proposal.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at noon.
(The sitting was closed at 12.15 a.m.)
Resumption of the sitting
For technical reasons, the Minutes for yesterday' s sitting will not be available until just after noon, and so will be presented for approval by the House at 3 p.m.
Vote on requests for urgent procedure
Last night, the Committee on Agricultural and Rural Development adopted the report by Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert on this subject.
I would like to hear the opinion of the committee responsible regarding this request for urgent procedure.
Who will speak on behalf of the committee?
Graefe zu Baringdorf (Greens/ALE), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
(DE) Madam President, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development recommends that the request for urgent procedure be accepted.
Firstly, this is an urgent matter which needs to be agreed this year.
Secondly, we agree with the objective.
The great majority of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is convinced that the use of BST should be banned this year.
(Parliament approved the request for urgent procedure)
Proposal for a Council regulation on Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (COM(99)0549 - C5-0285/99 - 1999/0221(CNS)) (Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism)
President.
The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism shall give its opinion on this request for urgent procedure.
Madam President, the request for urgent procedure on this matter can itself be put down to negligence on the part of the Council Secretariat.
We could see this coming for a long time now.
But it is the opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism that the people of Ireland must not be the ones to suffer on account of this and that is why we are in favour of this matter being treated with urgency.
I just wanted to check whether there will be an opportunity to discuss this issue later in the week because one of the things that has not been discussed in this Parliament is the role the arms industries are playing in the peace process in Northern Ireland.
Some years ago in this Parliament, when a report was put forward in committee, I tried to get amendments through to say that the arms industry should not have a role in the peace process.
Yet the only job opportunity that has been provided in Derry so far on foot of the peace process has been by Raytheon, the third-biggest arms manufacturing company in the US.
So I think it is a contradiction in terms to talk about a peace process and to provide jobs in the arms industry for people who have been decimated by violence.
Madam President, I have requested the floor for a procedural motion.
Numerous Members are stuck in their hotels in the centre of Strasbourg, at least in the area where the Novotel and Ibis hotels are located.
When the first car left, half an hour late, they asked me to pass on this protest because at least 15 Members were in the same hotel and will not be able to take part in the vote because of the transport delay.
I am very sorry, Mr Colom i Naval.
We shall see what we can do to ensure that this does not recur, and we shall see how they may join us as quickly as possible.
Madam President, we have discussed this in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy.
We see no case for urgency and we would prefer to draft a report in which we can work out the accession strategy and state the position of the European Parliament.
We therefore oppose the urgency tabled by the Council.
(Parliament rejected the request for urgent procedure)
Thank you, Mr Galeote Quecedo, I am already aware of the problems that a number of Members are having in getting to Strasbourg.
As you know, I try to do all I can to improve communications. Indeed, it is one of my objectives.
European Council/Finnish Presidency, Chechnya, OSCE
To help Mr Galeote and one or two other Members in the state-of-the-art plenary that we have here, I wondered if it would be possible at some future date for Members actually to be able to keep the same seat.
We seem to be continually rotating and it is often difficult for Members to find their seats.
Even in the old chamber when we did not have places allocated, we were at least able to continue to sit in the same places.
One wonders how long we will have to keep printing new seating orders.
Could this be rectified?
Yes, indeed, Mr Sturdy. The reformation of the Technical Group of Independent Members has caused a few problems, but this is something that we shall solve quite quickly.
The next item is the joint debate on the meeting of the European Council held in Helsinki on 10 and 11 December, and the statement by the President-in-Office of the Council regarding the results of the six-month term of office of the Finnish Presidency, including the situation in Chechnya and the OSCE Summit.
I have had word from Mr Lipponen to say that he has been delayed.
Since Mr Prodi is already present, I shall give him the floor first, if he is in agreement.
My thanks to the Commission President, Mr Romano Prodi, and may I now welcome Mr Lipponen.
We have heard that your car was delayed. You need make no apology.
Prime Minister Lipponen, I shall give you the floor immediately.
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the Finnish Presidency on the success of their debut.
It has been a fine debut, because you have been able, at this historic and symbolic moment, at the dawn of the new millennium, to draw up a creative approach for the European Union in the light of the challenges it is facing.
I believe that Prime Minister Lipponen and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mrs Halonen, who is absent today due to other work commitments, have truly worked effectively and seriously.
Our fundamental criticism of the Finnish Presidency and the Summit is that, clearly, and in the eyes of our citizens, their substance has been more impressive than appearances would suggest.
I think this concern should be expressed through our comments and criticisms here in the European Parliament. Why?
Because, with regard to enlargement, an open and political principle has been displayed by offering all countries the possibility of acceding, of competing with us, with a desire to emulate us and of participating in our adventure.
It is also clear that a significant and genuine step forward has been taken in relation to Turkey.
I have to say, on behalf of my group - where we have debated the issue at length - that our positive attitude towards Turkey is unanimous.
And now, at a time when this step has been taken - and we must remember that relations with Turkey did not start yesterday, but in 1963 -, we hope that Turkey will also respond in a positive manner, both with regard to its internal process of democratisation as well as its relations, not only with the Community, but essentially with the country which has taken the most important step and which I think should be congratulated: Greece and its government.
Next, with regard to the Intergovernmental Conference, which is the preliminary step we have to take in preparing our shared Community for enlargement, I believe that we are moving forward significantly, but I am extremely aware that the Council systematically tries to undervalue what it does.
There is always talk about the leftovers of Amsterdam; leftovers are normally thrown in the bin.
These are very important decisions.
Confirming the principle of majority voting as a general rule in the Community, as the basis for the political functioning of the Union (which is very important for the Parliament insofar as we can make codecisions), being granted legal personality, which includes, in the Conference, decisions which the Council has taken, such as, for example, drawing up a Charter of Fundamental Rights... What is the point of all this if it is not included in the Treaties?
A significant step has been taken with regard to security and defence policy, and in this sense I would like to underline the fact that the Community spirit is winning us all over.
Who would have said a year ago that Finland would be the country which would preside over the European Union at a time when it was taking such a decisive step in terms of security and defence identity? I believe this shows that, together, we are doing things and taking positive steps.
Curiously though, we do not explain them and we do not sell them.
And nor do we accept an important task in this Parliament which is, in the name of transparency and through clarification, to try to create Treaties which are comprehensible to the citizens.
I would remind you that this appears in the Treaty of Amsterdam, but has not been mentioned since. This opportunity, which is so important, has never been taken.
I must also say that the Summit statement with regard to the European Parliament' s participation may well be positive to an extent, but we do not like to be described as parliamentary observers.
We want to have 'representatives' of this Parliament, because that is the role of our institution.
And remembering what happened at the Seattle Summit, I believe that we have to make a considerable effort to explain to the citizens what we are doing.
Otherwise, we run the risk of producing unwanted reactions.
A final word, Madam President, regarding an issue which concerns my group very much.
It seems to us absolutely essential that we are able to move forward in relation to capital-gains tax.
The European process cannot be seen as a process in which there is less and less capital gains tax and more and more tax on wages.
If we continue along these lines, we may find that those in work will react against the European process, especially within a framework of financial globalisation which lacks rules.
Therefore, Madam President, I believe that the Finnish Presidency has taken an enormous step forward.
What is now required is a sustained, hard, arduous and persistent effort to keep things moving forward.
But, above all, we have to carry out the task of explaining the process to our citizens, and I believe that that is our principal mission.
I would like, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group, to warmly congratulate the Finnish Presidency.
You have completed a very successful first presidency for Finland but you have done it with a capacity that does enormous credit to the tasks which you addressed.
The Summit has produced a result which is worthy of the times.
We are at the end of a century, we are contemplating a new millennium and it is a time of review, a time of outlook and a time of new optimism.
I believe, in a certain way, the Summit has captured that.
I believe that the major decisions that have been made in respect of enlargement, reform and defence show that there is a sustained vitality in our common European vocation.
That is an important message and the central message that has emerged from your successful presidency and on that you deserve rich and proper congratulation.
I should like to say, in respect of enlargement, that my group, as the others too have expressed here today, is extremely pleased to see that negotiations will open soon with the six additional States of Central and Eastern Europe.
It is important that we inject a new political dynamic into the enlargement process.
The enlargement process itself is essentially a political process and we must not lose sight of that, notwithstanding the many technical dimensions that attend it.
On the question of Turkey: my group welcomes the decision to extend candidate status to Turkey and regards it as positive.
We hope that the modernising influences within Turkish politics and society will now take hold of this opportunity and build on it in a positive way.
But in welcoming the decision as we do, we insist that those modernising forces must make determined progress towards European norms of respect for human rights and of the relationship between civil and military society; towards the abolition of the death penalty; towards a clear respect for minorities, especially the Kurdish minority in Turkey.
The European Union has also made through your presidency a wise choice in insisting that the reform process in the Treaties must be over and operational by the year 2002 so that it will facilitate early accession because it is important to ensure that the reform process should not become the enemy of the enlargement process.
The IGC has the opportunity to enhance efficiency and effectiveness and to deepen the democratic character of the European Union.
However, we are disappointed that the IGC agenda which has been contemplated at Helsinki has been limited to what has been described as the Amsterdam leftovers.
I accept that these are not merely crumbs on the table, they are significant slices of reform but we must grasp this opportunity to do more.
My group, through this House, will work with other parliamentarians and with the Commission to try to convince the incoming Portuguese Presidency to be more ambitious in the reform, all the while respecting the timetable.
I share the view of other colleagues that it is unfortunate to describe the role that this House can play as one merely of observer.
I welcome the fact that we will participate but we participate as equals and not merely as observers.
On the question of defence, we warmly welcome the establishment of the rapid reaction force and its significant and necessary progress - Kosovo has taught us dearly the need for that.
My group, however, again wishes to stress the importance that this should be seen in the context of a strong Atlantic Alliance.
We must not give any succour to the forces in US politics who show a tendency towards isolationism, many of whose voices are now raised in the current US Presidential election.
In this regard, one suggestion is that we contemplate the establishment of a political and security committee and military committee.
Could the Defence Minister of the incoming Presidency come to this House at an early date and make a statement to us? We need to clarify a number of things such as the role of EU non-NATO members in such a force and the role of non-EU NATO members in respect of such a force if they wish to participate.
This and other issues should have a democratic airing and this is the place to do so at a European level.
A final comment: I could not sit down without mentioning our deep concern about Chechnya.
We welcome the fact that this is occupying the attention of Helsinki.
We would urge the IMF also to act vigorously in this regard because, although each State has a right to defend itself against terrorism, what we observe in Chechnya is grossly disproportionate to the scale of the perceived threat and we have to deplore and condemn it at every opportunity.
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, my group would first like to acknowledge to those representing the Finnish Presidency that you, as compared with the European Parliament, have improved transparency and the flow of information.
The Finnish Presidency has kept us better informed than former presidencies, which is obviously important, as it strengthens relations between the European Parliament and the Council with reference to the Treaty of Amsterdam.
The conclusions of the Summit meeting declare, quite satisfactorily, that the Commission at last intends to issue a proposal in January regarding the conditions on which the public will be able to access the documents of the institutions.
I would like to tell you that this draft regulation has been leaked to the public, and that is worrying.
That does not make for a spirit of transparency; on the contrary, it might even weaken it, so I would ask you to give this matter your attention.
The final proposal can surely yet be amended in such a way that it would really increase transparency.
Regarding enlargement, I wish to say that we are very satisfied that the Council has now finally agreed that each candidate country must be assessed on their own merits.
This is exactly the strategy we proposed from the outset.
Now we have to ensure that we also achieve a balance in the progress we make in negotiations and that candidate countries give sufficient consideration to the issues of social security, equality between men and women, employment and environmental protection.
With regard to Turkey, our opinion is that the European Council should mean what it says, in other words, that the same criteria should apply to Turkey as with the other countries that have been accorded candidate status.
We call on you to look seriously into the question relating to the status of the Kurds.
Islam is obviously already a European tradition, and so we have no fears of the European Union becoming more religiously diverse.
We were not inclined to agree with those in the European Parliament who have been keen to narrowly define the borders of Europe in the belief that Islam is somehow non-European.
On the contrary, we think it can indeed be a part of European culture.
Th majority of our group would seem to agree that the European Union should also develop a system for military crisis management, to prevent humanitarian catastrophes.
We are very dissatisfied with the way in which the European Council and preparatory discussions have paid little heed to public debate and public opinion.
We want to point out that foreign and security policy, as any other, must be democratic, and you must open up this debate, so the public know what the next phases of the process are to be.
We do not want the European Union to become NATO' s European military pillar.
We want you to strengthen civil crisis management, because, as we all know, it is the wisest thing to do.
The non-military prevention of conflicts is always more important, and for every euro invested in military crisis management at least as much must be spent on civil crisis management.
Finally, your position on Chechnya was a step in the right direction.
I am certain the European Parliament' s calls to put economic cooperation on ice have had an effect, and we believe that you will remain firm in your opinion that this is not a situation in which we can act as if nothing has happened.
Mr President, a quarter of a century ago, at the time of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the spirit in Helsinki was one of peace and cooperation.
Now it is a spirit of European militarisation.
At the Helsinki Summit, the EU expanded its role to include the militarisation of the Union.
We are to establish our own European army for the EU, although it will not be called that officially.
The Member States committed themselves to releasing troops from their own authority to form a fifty thousand strong European army and assigned troops equivalent to a whole corps for the joint deployment of the EU.
In addition, they are going to create rapid deployment forces for wars lasting no more than a year.
At Amsterdam a common foreign and security policy was referred to.
At Cologne it was already a common security and defence policy that was mentioned.
Since then, many, following the lead of the Commission, have started talking about a common defence.
The ideas expressed speak for themselves.
The EU has started to become a war alliance and a military alliance.
At Helsinki, the attendance of defence ministers at meetings of the General Affairs Council was officially approved.
The EU will thus acquire a Council of Ministers of War.
In Helsinki a standing committee on political and security matters was set up.
Since Helsinki, the commanders of the defence forces of the various countries have formed an EU Military Committee, which is free of any kind of democratic scrutiny.
It was also decided at Helsinki to establish a Military Staff, which will be an EU military planning body for spying operations and mobilisation.
Consequently, talk has begun of the need to increase military appropriations.
Via the new institutions, a new defence dimension is being created, despite the fact that no agreement has been made in the Treaties that joint military operations fall within the scope of the EU.
These decisions should be taken to the EU Court of Justice.
Can Heads of State and Government extend the role of the EU without the approval of Parliament?
The NATO countries doubtless intend to put the decisions of the fiftieth anniversary conference of the "Alliance" into effect.
Since the decisions taken at Washington the NATO countries have been able to act outside the territories of their Member States. They have assumed the right to attack other countries without a mandate from either the UN or the OSCE.
In NATO this is called humanitarian intervention, as it has no mandate under international law.
In the EU, it is called crisis management, which also includes forcible peace-making.
There was no decision at Helsinki to mandate crisis management or forcible peace-making.
As the EU is being militarised, it would seem to be happening with a mandate from NATO.
The Finnish Presidency has ended wretchedly from the point of view of preserving the non-alignment of a non-aligned State.
If the meeting were historic this was mainly in the sense that the EU is being militarised.
There were no surprises at Helsinki as far as EU enlargement and the Intergovernmental Conference were concerned.
In the opinion of our group, the Russian attack on civilians in Chechnya is to be strongly condemned, and it was at Helsinki.
In the fight against unemployment, we wish Portugal better success that Finland had.
Mr President, the Helsinki Summit of EU leaders has been quite accurately billed as the European Union's enlargement Summit, and there can be no doubt that this European Council meeting has lived up to this particular expectation.
The EU leaders reaffirmed the inclusive nature of the accession process which now comprises 13 candidate States within a single framework.
In essence what this means is that the countries, including Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Malta, will now open negotiations on membership of the European Union in March of next year.
These new countries join with the original six that are already engaged in extensive talks with the Union covering 38 different chapters of negotiations concerning the enlargement process.
All the countries seeking to accede to the EU regard the prospect of membership of the Union as an essential ingredient in achieving the transformation of their economic and political structures.
The leaders of the 15 countries presently comprising membership of the EU believe that there will have to be substantial changes to the internal decision-making processes within the EU if the enlargement process is to take place in a structured and streamlined fashion.
EU leaders have agreed to set the end of the year 2002 as the deadline for the EU's internal preparations, notably the ratification of any institutional changes which are agreed at the future IGC.
We all know that the enlargement process cannot take place unless there is some reform in the decision-making procedures within the European Union itself.
However, the deadline being set down for the next intergovernmental conference is very ambitious indeed.
I support working towards reaching an agreement by the end of next year, but equally we must not and should not hurry possible fundamental reforms to existing treaties without due consideration and evaluation.
Certainly it would be extremely difficult and impracticable to secure the support of the European public to introduce unanimity for tax harmonisation changes or for decisions concerning foreign and security matters at European Council level.
We must tread carefully on the matter of treaty reform for the simple reason that we have to guarantee that we can carry the support of the 340 million citizens in the EU for any such changes.
Turkey has also been designated as having candidate status for membership of the EU although it will have to meet the political criteria laid down for prospective accession, which of course will include proving that respect for human rights is an intrinsic part of Turkish life.
On the issue of Chechnya the European Union leaders were right to bring home to Russia the force of their anger at the brutality of Russian behaviour in the region.
A negotiated settlement is still the only real long-term solution for the securing of a peace settlement in Chechnya.
The European Union must continue to use every diplomatic avenue open to it to help halt the war in Chechnya.
Mr President, I fear that time will tell that the decision taken in Helsinki to accord Turkey candidate status for membership of the European Union is a political miscalculation that threatens to have dramatic repercussions for our Member States and for Turkey.
Whilst acknowledging that Turkey must indeed be accorded respect as an important and culturally-rich nation and friendly neighbouring country with which we want to remain on the best of terms, Turkey still does not belong in Europe.
That is only logical historically, geographically-speaking and from the point of view of common sense.
We must pluck up the courage to tell this friendly neighbouring country as much.
For historical, cultural, religious and political reasons, Turkey has never been part of European civilisation.
Quite the opposite in fact.
In Helsinki, the European countries bent over backwards yet again for American geo-political interests and for nothing else.
Do I need to produce a map to remind you that only three percent of Turkey is on European soil? How can people undermine Europe in this way and strip it of its historical identity by continuing even to consider extending candidate status to a country that lies in a different part of the world.
Finally, I would just like to say something about the logic of common sense, for a number of Member States are already struggling with a massive, almost unmanageable immigration problem.
If Turkey accedes to the European Union then the problem will grow to gigantic proportions.
This will result in an invasion of the kind that the French President Valérie Giscard d' Estaing once warned about.
That is why my party, the Flemish Block, will continue to oppose any possibility of Turkey acceding to the European Union.
Mr President, the Helsinki Summit was an event of historic significance. The EU is to get its own military rapid reaction corps.
The world' s largest trading power is to begin establishing its own military force, and the world is on the way to acquiring a new superstate in addition to the USA.
To be sure, it has been agreed that the EU army is not really an EU army at all because it is not on a permanent basis, but then nor are NATO armed forces or a Eurocorps on a permanent basis either.
The EU army is the same, in having a command structure of troops and hardware to be deployed on a variety of tasks.
Let us call a spade a spade and an EU army an EU army.
With its own currency, police force and military, the EU is to dispose of the resources normally pertaining to a Nation State.
The EU already has more legislative power than other federations, and the essence of the next treaty will be more majority decision making.
We are on the way from a confederation to a federal State, but this is still only the last but one treaty before the drafting of a constitution for just such a federal State, for no-one is going to give up the right of veto in regard to the amendment of the Treaties, the levying of new taxes and the sending of soldiers off to war.
The next treaty too will contain familiar echoes of the nation States of old.
France and Britain will not be submitting their nuclear weapons to EU control.
We are to get a quasi-federal confederation dominated by the three biggest countries, Europe' s former great powers.
Enlargement will not take the form of negotiations concerned with creating a common, democratic Europe.
The first requirement of enlargement is that the Eastern and Central European countries discard everything they themselves have decided and replace it with the European Union' s common legislation, the sacred and universal acquis communautaire.
Their newly won right to deliberate on new laws in elected parliaments is to be transferred to negotiators behind more closed doors in Brussels.
Their electors and elected representatives are to surrender power to officials and ministers.
Democracy, for them, is to become the exception rather than the rule, as has also happened in our own case.
Matters need not reach this pass.
We must hope that there are people who dare to say no to the penultimate treaty before the drafting of an actual constitution and who dare to prepare the ground for replacing regimentation and centralism with a Europe of democracies and diversites.
Following this criticism, I should just like to commend the Finnish Presidency for having promoted the cause of openness by means of the Presidency' s new home pages.
These have been very useful, and I hope that the Portuguese Presidency will take its cue from this initiative.
Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority.
I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy.
However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved.
However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers.
This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up.
Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort.
Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell.
We very much doubt it.
By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria.
The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya.
As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper.
But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council Lipponen and Commission President Romano Prodi gave us an excellent summary of the main decisions taken during the Finnish Presidency and of future tasks that lay ahead.
Although I am therefore satisfied with the Finnish Government' s strong grasp of leadership and the fact that either considerable progress was made with the key issues or they were finally resolved, it is clear that the good results of the Presidency stem from the desire by the whole of the Union to develop a common European structure.
If I also mention various disappointments, I am not blaming the Finnish Presidency for them: certain matters simply need more consideration; along the same tracks run trains of varying speed, and the heaviest loads are often the slowest.
I am very satisfied with the progress made on a common dimension for crisis management and defence.
The bases for the security of people in a democratic Union that is committed to a market economy and respect for the principle of the rule of law are economic growth, increased employment, internal security to combat crime, and a common foreign, political and military security system.
The extension of Union enlargement to all thirteen countries ended the artificial split between the applicant countries.
I would say that the decision on Turkish candidacy for membership will furthermore induce this large and important country to determine for itself whether it will ever achieve membership.
The northern dimension was overshadowed by the open crises in Kosovo and Chechnya.
I share with Mr Lipponen' s hope that Russia will become a more successful member of the global community, which would make cross-border cooperation possible on Russia' s northern border with the Union and thus give substance to the northern dimension.
The decision to promote all the possibilities of information technology to improve the Union' s competitiveness and the aim to take Europe to the number one position in the world as an information society player are both essential ingredients in the promotion of economic security.
In this area, Commissioner Liikanen will have both an interesting and mighty task ahead of him.
Among the disappointments we must once again include certain important issues with regard to the development of the single market and the Union' s decision-making system.
The tax package, even a nodding glance at the harmonisation of taxes, failed.
The idea of a European limited company could not be taken forward, and the illegal beef war in Europe continues.
Finally, I would like to raise a small but, in my own area, important matter.
Where did WADA (the World Anti Doping Agency) disappear to, beyond the reach of the Union, and the watchdog on sports-related illness and the doctor, which Commissioner Viviane Reding reported on 1 December, and in which the Union was to have a key role? Do the Member States not fear the present and future skeletons in their own cupboards in wishing to keep the main responsibility for themselves within the territory of the Union?
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, the Helsinki Summit will go down in history because of the decisions that were taken there.
The meeting showed the way for development in Europe far into the future.
The European Union will move beyond its borders once and for all at the start of the next millennium.
The progress made from the start of talks with the six new candidates for membership, and the acceptance of Turkey as a candidate for membership has been an inevitable part of the European policy to reinforce stability and strengthen prosperity in our continent.
At the same time we have to give yet more consideration to how ready the EU itself is for enlargement and what sort of timetable might be involved.
The pace of enlargement has to be in accordance with how prepared both the applicant countries and the EU itself are. Otherwise, we will all be sorely disappointed.
The future challenges of an enlarged EU, or even one the present size, will not be solved at the next IGC.
We have to prepare for a wider agenda now.
However, it was important to decide on a new IGC to resolve the questions which were unresolved at Amsterdam.
The Helsinki meeting also bore witness to the fact that there is a need for a broader adoption of the rules for qualified majority voting.
Despite failures at Helsinki, we have to move on quickly to find a solution to the tax issue.
We will not be able to prevent even greater inequality in societies and among people unless profits from capital are subject to a minimum rate of taxation within the entire single market area.
The European Parliament has continually called for greater transparency for all the EU institutions.
A lack of transparency has been a particular source of trouble for decision making in the Council, and Finland, as the country holding the Presidency, has initiated new practices to increase transparency, practices which we would hope will become established before proper rules are drafted.
We also made headway on environmental matters.
The integration of environmental policy with all policy areas and making it feasible to sign the Kyoto Agreement more quickly were important steps forward.
But one disappointment has to be recorded for this autumn: the failure to review the rules for Members and assistants.
I know, of course, that the Presidency is not to blame for this.
The Presidency has been active and willing to find compromises; the problems and guilty parties are unfortunately to be found in this Chamber.
May I welcome the reform of the Council itself and especially the agreed programme designed to improve the performance and coordinating role of the General Affairs Council.
The extension of European Union competence into the defence field accentuates the need for improvements of the working of the Council.
It also requires the European Parliament to extend its own scope to the defence field, especially when the Western European Union Assembly is closed down, so that proper democratic scrutiny of this sensitive and controversial field will be provided.
What plans does the Presidency have to start a dialogue with Parliament upon security and defence questions, and when will the Presidency's Minister of Defence make a statement upon the development of a common policy for European security and defence? I should be extremely grateful for a response from the Presidency upon these questions.
President of the Commission, I think that despite all the talk about transparency and openness which our Nordic friends are congratulating themselves on, the Finnish Presidency has managed to obtain, in the conclusions, what the governments actually want: to keep the European Union' s decisions and actions completely free from any interference, not only by Parliament, but also the Commission.
Now, I am wondering, President Prodi, how you can be so happy when the Commission is practically being reduced to the role of report-provider on the most varied subjects, and clearly does not have a central role in the decisions or initiatives, in respect of both the Intergovernmental Conference and the CFSP.
I am also very surprised that as someone who has been speaking to us since September about the importance of a comprehensive reform and his willingness on this matter with regard to the Council, today you are pleased that a comprehensive agenda has not been drawn up.
I would like to express my wish that the Members think carefully before accepting Parliament' s opinion on the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference - which is the only, extremely weak tool we have - and that they try, in all ways possible, to convince the Commission that it is necessary to agree to have clear discussions with the Council and its members - including Italian, Belgian and French members, whose speeches on this subject have been, so to speak, a little modest - in order to take the decisions on the future of the European Union out of the hands of diplomats and national governments.
I think that pretending everything is going well, when the choice that has been made goes decidedly in the direction of enlarging the Union without deepening it, is profoundly wrong.
When you read the papers and reports from the Summit, you have to admit that George Orwell did not live in vain.
At any rate, his Ministry of Truth or the principles behind it have survived him.
Now, we no longer talk about war; we talk about humanitarian campaigns.
And an army is not called an army; 60 000 armed soldiers are a humanitarian rapid reaction corps.
In spite of the fact that the Finnish Presidency has been genuinely enthusiastic in its efforts to promote openness, the Commission has produced a document containing its own, Orwellian, notions of openness.
Openness applies only to a very limited extent and not if you ask for it too often, for example as a journalist, and intend to publish the information in question and thus actually sell newspapers. In that case, openness does not apply.
Turkey has also been processed by the Ministry of Truth.
It has now become more democratic, even if the Kurds and Turks continue to be oppressed.
Yesterday' s debate here in the Chamber concerning European culture was quite a disagreeable experience.
It was the debate which arose out of Turkey' s status as an applicant country.
What is our common European culture? I want to say at once that I have very little in common culturally with Jörg Haider in Austria or Mr Le Pen in France or, for that matter, with my own countryman, Mogens Camre in Denmark.
I feel I have much stronger cultural ties with progressive Turks and Kurds who are fighting for justice, freedom and democracy, and I am looking forward to the day when they can be welcomed into a European working partnership.
I am looking forward to Europe' s beginning to take its multi-ethnic culture seriously, but as long as the death sentence against Mr Öçalan is still in force, this is quite the wrong moment to send the Turkish Government a signal to the effect that Turkey is welcome as an applicant country
Mr President, while it is positive that the European Union wants other countries to accede so that it can consolidate the growth of democracy there and reinforce their economic capabilities on the world market - where, let me say yet again, we must defend the distinctive character of national products, by combating type-approval and standardisation, which undoubtedly lead to the decline of individual cultures and product quality - it is just as necessary that Parliament clearly reasserts that a new country' s membership is dependent on the requirements laid down in Amsterdam actually having been implemented in that country.
In this respect, we would point out moreover, that the issue of dangerous and obsolete nuclear power plants is still unresolved. Moreover, Parliament has already taken a position on this.
It is just as obvious though, that enlargement in the envisaged timeframe does not allow either for the immediate creation of a common foreign policy or the drawing-up of an economic policy programme, even though the latter is very urgent, especially in the light of the recovery of the dollar against the euro and the disappointing results of Seattle.
Therefore, it is with regret that we must tailor our former hopes to current requirements, and the only solution seems to be to undertake a new type of agreement, within the Union and before it accepts new members, countries which have the same interest in a Common Foreign and Defence Policy, in common laws that will guarantee the fight against crime, drugs, uncontrolled immigration, countries that want to regain their common right to campaign against violations of human rights by taking active steps to combat cruelty and genocide.
The choice made at Helsinki to set up one of the first units of a European army is heading in the right direction and must be supported by Parliament, in the hope that the initiative will not stop at this first step.
This hypothesis, which we are putting forward in the hope that those who agree with the same objectives are finally starting to discuss possible new agreements, must not be confused with the notion of a multi-speed Europe, but should instead be thought of as a two-tiered Union.
We are proposing a political level for the current Member States which choose to make a great leap forward in this sector, and a second, economic level for the fifteen current Member States and the new members.
Obviously, with time, anyone who makes the request and meets the requirements will be able to take their place at the political level, but today, if we do not proceed quickly in this direction and consider enlarging by almost doubling the number of Member States without well thought out and tested institutional reforms - there is no time left to test them out - we are sounding the death knoll for the dream of a political Union which is able to respect identities, cultures and traditions, but nevertheless contributes to the creation of a new model of European citizen.
It is clear that for some, enlargement does not mean strengthening the Union but watering it down, marking the end of the hopes of our founding fathers.
Finally, I would like to extend an invitation to the Commission so that it avoids continuing to propose measures on asparagus and lupins and instead seeks to give us a political and economic plan before it becomes a laughing stock.
Mr President, firstly a premise which, I believe, is true for every one of us, but most especially for our President, Nicole Fontaine.
I feel the matter of the status that the two Members of Parliament will have at the Intergovernmental Conference is quite intolerable.
We cannot accept it, and our President should make this known.
This is the status of NGO.
Do we wish to be and to continue to be an NGO? We would be, like the NGOs, mere observers.
I think it high time that Parliament knew how to say no to this state of affairs.
More generally, I find your memory rather selective, ladies and gentlemen.
At Amsterdam, the conference concluded with the fact that if we were to number more than 20 members, we should have to implement at least three reforms.
This is no longer the scenario.
The current scenario envisages 27 Member States and yet more in the years to come, requiring much, much more far-reaching reforms.
By accepting these conclusions, we are making ourselves, Council and Parliament, accessories to a policy which will prove to be extremely serious in the years to come, and which will bring the entire European Union to a halt.
This Parliament cannot pretend it does not understand or that it is not aware of this policy.
We cannot, as some of my fellow Members have said, consider that we can discuss matters with the Portuguese Presidency when we already know there is a majority in the Council ready to oppose adding items to the agenda.
We must use the only weapon available to us, and if Mr Barnier does not agree to call it an all out strike, then let us call it resistance.
In any case, we cannot defer until June the battle that we must wage in January.
Our problem is the opinion which we must deliver prior to the start of the Intergovernmental Conference, i.e. as early as January.
We could, of course, act complacently, we could pretend to close our eyes and to believe that we might convince the Portuguese Presidency, which in turn may convince the other Member States. We can delude ourselves.
We have already done so often enough. Now, perhaps, it is time for Parliament to wake up.
As regards enlargement, I think we are insulting a number of countries, without even being aware of it.
We extended candidacy to Turkey. This is fine, even if, as always, it was done too late.
But we are abandoning countries such as Albania, Macedonia and Croatia, even though there is no reason to abandon them, since we decided that each country might enter the Union when it has implemented the necessary reforms.
We must extend candidacy to these countries as a matter of urgency, just as, as a matter of urgency, we must recognise that Chechnya is not located somewhere on the moon, but in a region of Europe, in the Transcaucasus.
It is a matter of urgency that Europe should have a policy worthy of the name in this region, otherwise, just like the Balkans over the last ten years, we shall see it becoming a region of war and destruction, as is already the case in Chechnya today.
Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward.
However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny.
We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict.
One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship.
There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned.
For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community.
The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President of the European Commission, I am only too happy to second the positive statements made by our group chairman Hans-Gert Poettering and Mrs Suominen.
I am not going to repeat them.
But, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you also said that the Helsinki Summit did not deliver the goods.
I thought that was a very apt way of characterising the situation.
I shall just cite three disappointing outcomes.
My first example is the IGC.
Mr Poettering has rightly already pointed out that the three Amsterdam leftovers do in fact represent a very minimal package, and in particular, that the question of qualified majority decision making is still a major point of discussion in the Council.
The door is already slightly ajar, but on no account must we lose sight of the fact that the Helsinki Summit failed to adopt the recommendations of the Committee of Wise Men under the direction of Mr Dehaene following the excellent proposals prepared by the European Commission under the direction of Commissioner Barnier.
This was a very disappointing development in my view and so I really hope that the Commission and Parliament are in a position to convince the Portuguese Council Presidency that we need to go a little further than is the case at present.
Of course security is another area that still needs to be properly resolved.
What exactly is Mr Solana' s role and what is the European Commission' s role? If you take a look at the annexes then what you will see are numerous questions relating to the whole issue of democratic control.
What does the European Parliament intend to do? What do the national parliaments intend to do?
The taxation package certainly was not a key issue but then how can you face the citizens with the news that after so many years the slight increase in taxation of capital that we need is still outstanding.
Three thousand jobs are given priority in one Member State but not in others.
That is not what solidarity is all about and neither is it something we can defend.
I therefore hope that Mr Prodi will take the lead during the next Presidency, so as to ensure that the Member States get the message at long last.
Mr President, an historic decision has indeed been taken in Helsinki.
It is a cheque made out to the future and, to be frank, neither you nor we know how we can honour it.
After the unanimous vote on the enlargement process, no further doubt can or will be cast on the seriousness of our intentions and of Turkey' s intention to meet the Copenhagen criteria as quickly as possible.
It is the will of the Helsinki Summit that the European Union should number 28 Member States in a few years' time.
However, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, a number of questions then arise as to the scope of the decisions which have been taken.
Do you really believe that, once the Amsterdam leftovers have been cleared up, our Union will still have the power to act and will still be transparent and democratic with 27 or 28 Member States?
Do you really believe that we can maintain the present language rules in our institutions with 15, 16, 17 or 18 languages? Do you believe that we can maintain the present internal modus operandi of our institutions, of the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission and the balance between them with 27 or 28 Member States?
Do you really believe that Turkey, the European country with the largest population and a long history its own, will merely join the European Union as its 28th Member State rather than changing the very nature of it? Do we not need a plan for moving the Schengen borders to the Euphrates and Tigris?
Do we not need a plan for dealing with accession applications received by the European Union from the States of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus in the wake of the Helsinki decision?
And for dealing with Russia if we receive accession applications from the States of that region?
I trust that we will find the flexibility within the European Union, the flexibility which has so far completely eluded us - what we previously described as flexibility notwithstanding - in order to safeguard the cohesion of the European Union. I trust that we shall, over coming years, find the strength and the courage to answer these questions and to find answers of our own before others find them for us.
Mr President, we hoped that, after the Berlin Wall came down, certain limits could be placed upon the atrocities committed in the world.
That is why we intervened in Kosovo where an odious regime was in the process of driving out a whole people; and that is why we were delighted when Indonesia' s atrocities in East Timor were eventually brought to an end.
But now we are seeing, in Chechnya, ruthless state terror directed against an entire population.
We see an army combating terrorism by razing towns to the ground and causing hundreds of thousands of people to flee.
We see a government and a presidential candidate courting popularity by pounding what they perceive as the Chechen enemy into the ground, and we see how, in the election campaign in Russia, there is almost no opposition to this cruel strategy.
In the EU, we have been too weak in our protests and with our sanctions and, in that way, have betrayed the liberal and democratic forces in Russia.
Thanks are due to the Council for the fact that it is now finally speaking plainly about Russia' s flagrant breach of a whole range of international obligations.
It is now a question of the Council' s honouring its words. Everything must be done to enable us to help bring this barbarism to an end and to ensure that vital humanitarian aid is provided to hundreds of thousands of civilians.
This century has been terrible enough, but the end of the century has also been full of promise.
The issue where Chechnya is concerned is really one of whether this is to be the last tragic convulsion of an unhappy century or the start of a new century which is just as tragic.
I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of Parliament, through you, to express our thanks to your officials for all the good cooperation we have had during the last six months.
.
(IT) I will take the floor again very briefly, Mr President, to make some points about the previous debate.
I can see that there is an almost unanimous feeling of disappointment over the failed agreement on tax matters, and I believe that the reasons for this are broadly shared.
There was also almost universal agreement about Chechnya and the need for us not to have double standards in our foreign policy, but to reassert the principles which are the cornerstone of the European Union.
Moreover, there is a generally favourable opinion of the European Union' s rapid intervention force, even if there were some who disagreed over this. It has always been the tradition to disagree, not only in the European Parliament but also in many national parliaments, when it comes to issues relating in some way to military matters, and the possibility of having a European army.
Nevertheless, I would like to comment briefly on the more controversial subject of the Intergovernmental Conference.
I have to say that the Commission is not in any way being excluded from decisions on the Intergovernmental Conference, and I also have to say that Parliament' s role has been increased, with respect to Amsterdam, even if the progress is less than stated by the Commission and the President of Parliament during the Helsinki debate.
But some progress has been made, and we can analyse it objectively: two representatives of the European Parliament will participate in all the talks and will be able to intervene at the beginning and end of each meeting at the Intergovernmental Conference; in addition, in each meeting of this type there will be talks between the President of Parliament and the Heads of State and Government.
This is minimal progress, but I assure you - and this is the important message I want to give you - that in this area, the Commission and the President of Parliament have taken the same line on increasing the presence of Parliament itself.
I think that this is a route we should pursue.
We must therefore say that the direction we have been heading in is the right one, even though the pace is extremely slow compared with the pace we had set ourselves.
However, we must not only look to the past: this is some advice, a lesson with a view what we have to do in the coming six months.
Leaving the door open as regards the agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference also provides an opportunity for the Commission and Parliament to cooperate in bringing in the reforms that we want via that door.
Before the Helsinki Conference, the door was closed; its opening is not, of course, a particularly significant result, but it is a lot more than we had expected and a lot more than was going to be allowed before the start of the Conference.
We must therefore learn a lesson as regards working together over the coming months.
We need to cooperate closely, precisely because it is through this door that the necessary reforms can come.
As for the rest, I will conclude with an observation on enlargement.
It is true, as Mr Poettering said, that time will tell whether or not it will be historic, but the decision is an important one.
As a consequence of this decision, we shall have to change a large number of our rules and current points of reference; we shall have to change a lot about our life, our culture, our budgets, our positions - everything we are doing.
It is a decision which has yet to be implemented.
On the other hand, it is clear that it will take years and a thorough analysis, because we need to reassure the public in the countries that are joining the Union, by showing them the real situation here, and making an accurate and serious comparison of legal, economic, political and transparency issues.
In short, we have started a process that will take us to an historic conclusion.
We have not yet reached it, but what we decided at Helsinki will have an enormous bearing on the work of Parliament and the work of the European Commission.
This is another area we must work on together so that a virtuous circle will come of it, and so that politics as well as the economy - both ours and of the countries that have applied for membership - can grow together and expand in the future.
Annex: Inauguration ceremony for the Louise Weiss Building
Mr President, I am glad that at least Mr Patten is here to follow this important debate, because there are urgent matters which require discussion.
The Council has at last joined the flock and declared sanctions on Russia.
But given the length of time the war has already been waging in the Caucasus, this decision is, of course, far too late to bring any real solution to the conflict. Given the massive expulsion of the civil population, it is far too weak a measure.
We have to imagine what is happening over there.
Ingushetia currently has more refugees than the indigenous population, with no humanitarian aid to compare with Kosovo.
Kosovo had humanitarian aid, here there is nothing.
That is the situation.
Which is why the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement must be suspended immediately.
Russia must be excluded from the G8 Summit and its government must not receive any more credit until a peaceful solution to the conflict has been found.
Exactly what sort of a foreign policy do we have at the moment? It is true that military forces are being planned, but a decision on an early end to the crisis has been delayed for weeks.
Europe must not just be the Europe of oil multinationals; it must also become the Europe of human rights, which is why we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance are calling for a conference on the Caucasus in collaboration with the OSCE so that a contribution to peace in this region can finally be made.
We shall continue discussions with human rights representatives from Chechnya, including discussions of projects.
I hope that the Commission will give proper support in this matter by making a contribution to peace and prevention in the region, because that is far more important than the military forces decided on in Helsinki.
Mr President, Commissioner, the Council has taken a significant step towards the militarisation of the European Union with its decision to develop the military crisis management corps.
The European Union has shown just how well it understands these crises by contributing to the disintegration of Yugoslavia, particularly with its barbarous and murderous attacks on the Yugoslav people.
It has shown its understanding by taking part in the occupation of Kosovo and in its continuing efforts to overturn the democratically-elected Yugoslav leadership.
The Council has decided to curtail democracy still further by abolishing the unanimity rule, even on extremely important issues.
The decision to extend candidate status to Turkey is, without a doubt, a political gesture towards the Turkish regime, despite the fact that it has made no move whatsoever towards fulfilling the conditions set by the European Union itself.
The Council is encouraging Turkey to continue with its violations of human rights, its genocide of the Kurdish people, its occupation of 38% of Cypriot territory and its territorial claims in the Aegean.
At the same time, it is thwarting the struggle of the Turkish people, for whom we feel solidarity.
The decisions in Helsinki illustrate quite clearly that behind the show of democracy and behind the lofty words on human rights lurk the creeping fascism of imperialist interests and violence against anybody who resists the new order of things.
However, the people of Europe are gradually overcoming their torpor following the overthrow of socialism in Europe and are preparing for a counter-attack.
Mr President, I think that what took place in Helsinki can be interpreted in a number of very different ways.
For example, in the field of enlargement, some will be pleased that Turkey has been granted applicant status and others will not be so pleased.
But it surely cannot be denied that the Presidency-in-Office of the Council has made significant advances in the field of common foreign and security policy by reorganising the duties of the Council, by clearly promoting non-military crisis management, by adopting a common strategy with regard to Ukraine and also by approving a statement on Chechnya, although we would have liked it to have been a little more forceful and I believe that in time we will be proved right.
Nevertheless, it must be said that, from the point of view of the institutions and the Intergovernmental Conference, the results are nothing to boast about and they prompt us to adopt one of two possible attitudes.
The first, clearly, is, as we say in my language, "to cry over spilt milk" , whilst the second - somewhat more realistic - would be to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Summit statement and to try to persevere in our objectives.
I would take this approach and, to this end, I think that we should try to re-establish that amicable partnership between the Commission and Parliament, who were unable to secure acceptance of their views at the Helsinki Summit.
I really believe that this Parliament, with the assistance of a slightly bolder and more ambitious Commission and, (to be frank), one which is a little more committed to reforming the institutions, could ensure that the misunderstandings of the past give way to more harmonious relations in the future and that we will all be able to promote the reform of the European Union, knowing, as we do, that if we ignore the concerns of the general public, these reforms will never come about and will never be a success.
Mr President, the logical starting point for the key decisions by the European Council was enlargement. So what did the Council do?
It completely overturned the enlargement doctrine applied hitherto. Now, we no longer have teams of candidates one after the other but just one race for all the candidate countries together, with Turkey as a candidate country now included.
My group, the Coalition, and I personally feel that, in principle, this is a change for the better. Nevertheless, both the Commission and the Council must remember that relations with Turkey are now Euro-Turkish relations and not Graeco-Turkish relations, as they have either hypocritically or maladroitly maintained in the past.
I would also point out, Mr President, that as the Union' s borders are expanding, a large black hole is forming in the Balkans.
This black hole includes both Serbia and many other countries and is right at the heart of the new geographical area you are building.
Is this political short-sightedness or pure vindictiveness? I, for one, do not know.
Finally, yet another intergovernmental conference and reform of the Treaty have been announced to address the issue of enlargement.
Yet another reform, yet another intergovernmental conference, with no Community approach, no role for the Commission and a meaningless role for Parliament, with no consultation with national parliaments and, finally, with no transparency and no accountability towards the civil society.
Is this how we are to increase the prestige and appeal of European unification? Have the Heads of State and Government and the Community bodies not learned anything from Seattle?
Mr President, the Summit was indeed historic, especially regarding defence and enlargement, if not the IGC.
The Union is at last facing up to challenges to security in Europe.
I should like to refer in particular to Turkey.
I now accept that making Turkey a formal candidate will help speed up an improvement in Turkey's record on democracy and human rights, concern about which reflects not hostility towards Turkey but attachment to its future in Europe.
Turkish failure to recognise the rights of the Kurds is the biggest single reason for its breaches of European democratic and human rights norms and the pretext for its military-dominated state.
So it is astonishing that neither the OSCE Summit declaration nor the Helsinki conclusions make any reference to the Kurds.
Turkey cannot meet European values or ensure security while it denies the different identity of its Kurdish citizens.
I welcome signals that Abdullah Öçalan's death sentence may be lifted; but the EU must make clear that if he is executed, accession negotiations cannot proceed.
We must insist the Turkish authorities respond to the PKK cease-fire and make moves to political settlement, recognising Kurdish cultural and democratic rights.
Finally, the UK Government must not give export credit funding to the Ilisu dam, which threatens to be a human rights disaster for the Kurds as well as an ecological disaster.
Mr President, the European Summit was less of a success than has been suggested here this morning.
The decisions on enlargement, the intervention force and Turkey' s application for EU membership are positive, but the words used to describe the IGC conceal a great lack of political will.
The agenda is still open in theory, but there is nothing to suggest that the governments really want fundamental change.
On the contrary, so far none of the Commission or Parliament proposals have been followed up.
I would very much like the Finnish Presidency to explain why this is so.
It is essential for there to be general majority decision making and increased cooperation.
The lack of political will to make this unequivocal choice will paralyse the decision-making process as soon as Europe undergoes enlargement.
Those who block fundamental reform want to keep Europe small, even though they might claim otherwise.
Mr President, the Helsinki Summit took account of the proposal for a charter of rights.
Today President Chirac made clear his view that an enlarged Europe must be built around respect for rights.
We agree with that, but we insist that a democratic European Union must be built on the rule of law as an equal partner with a charter of rights.
My SNP colleague Mr Hudghton and I did not join in the discourteous and petulant walk-out from President Chirac's speech this morning.
As a result, Mr Hudghton was able to put to President Chirac our point of view and get an undertaking for a possible reply to a letter we sent yesterday.
Another issue alive is that of enlarging the Union.
We share enthusiasm for enlargement provided proper institutional reform goes ahead.
It should, however, be remembered that there are not only nations in Eastern and Central Europe seeking entry, there are ancient nations in Western Europe too, represented here by the European Free Alliance, which seek fair recognition as members in Europe.
Our claims deserve better than an embarrassed silence that contrasts with the welcome others receive.
Reform of the institutions must create space for due recognition of existing regions and unrepresented nations.
We used to hear a lot about the Europe of the regions, a phrase less in use nowadays than a few years ago.
Not only did the Helsinki Council make paltry progress toward curing Europe's democratic deficit, but it did nothing at all about what ought to be recognised as a regional deficit.
Our task in the European Free Alliance is to get it recognised and cured with the help of our colleagues in the Greens/European Free Alliance.
Mr President, Commissioner, unfortunately there are no ministers here!
I should like to describe the Summit in maritime terms. The launch was a great success when it came to the major projects which were got under way.
There was no friction in the launch. But even though the launch has been successful, it is not known whether the ship is seaworthy and whether it will survive the storms to which it is exposed.
I am thinking especially here of the enlargement of the European Union.
How will this succeed? In the Summit' s conclusions, clear reservations are expressed about the applicant countries to the effect that several of them do not even fulfil the Copenhagen criteria in the medium to long term and that, in March, an assessment should be made of how the economic criteria are being fulfilled.
I think it is important for the future of the enlargement that we look to how the applicant countries achieve good administration and combat corruption and whether they have stable institutions.
The most important thing is not therefore that we should go through the acquis communautaire in detail. You see, it is not doing this which will decide whether the Union can be enlarged and whether the applicant countries are ready to enter the EU.
Rather, it is the answers to the basic questions I have just listed. We really need a different approach to that which was adopted during the last enlargement when Sweden, Finland and Austria became members.
Mr President, in my view, the problems and issues to be addressed following the Helsinki Summit fall into two basic entities.
The first is the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference and it is particularly sad that, following the Helsinki Summit and following the extensive debates held here in the European Parliament, the Presidency conclusions concerning the Intergovernmental Conference are so brief.
Perhaps they are not quite as brief as we had feared but they are much briefer than what we consider necessary for the European Union to prepare itself sufficiently for the passage from the 20th to the 21st century.
Mr President, it is clear that, this time more than ever, the Intergovernmental Conference and the review of the founding Treaties of the European Union are directly related to another important European Union decision: enlargement.
And since the European Union is about to take on board a large number of States - 13 in total - it would make sense to begin preparations to receive these States.
The question which arises from the Presidency conclusions is whether or not the commitments, yes the commitments, and the opinions in those conclusions allow the European Union to prepare itself to receive these new States.
I am afraid the answer is no.
In a number of resolutions, the European Parliament has already indicated how extensive these changes and reforms of the Treaties would have to be.
And the European Parliament will, of course, continue to indicate the way forward given that, as I said before, the decisions of the Helsinki Summit on the Intergovernmental Conference are clearly, and unfortunately, far too limited in scope.
There was no mention of the direction the European Union should be taking nor of the vision it should have.
There was no mention of the approach it should be adopting.
There was no mention of a number of new issues which are, if you like, the main goals and problems facing us in the 21st century.
As for enlargement, which is clearly a very important process and one which must be continued, integrated and completed, a new candidate country is now involved in this process: Turkey.
At this point in time, Turkey has been granted a new status, that of a candidate country.
However, at the same time, a number of conditions have been laid down which Turkey must fulfil before it can become a member of the European Union.
It is important that these conditions be fulfilled.
It is important that Turkey shows, in its desire to become a member of the European family, that it really does respect human rights, democracy and its neighbouring countries and that it truly wishes to find a calm and peaceful solution to any issues or problems which exist in relation to it.
Mr President, the President-in-Office of the Council has given scant attention to the OSCE Summit Conference that was held recently, this morning.
Other Helsinki matters took precedence.
The OSCE has to operate in the shadow of the EU and NATO, which have a much higher public profile.
The most important person to take the floor - in inverted commas - during the Istanbul Summit was President Yeltsin, who came to explain his policy towards Chechnya.
This explanation was unsatisfactory, it is true, but the Russians appear to regard the OSCE as the only organisation in Europe that they should give account to and which should be given access to the region.
In point of fact, the President of the OSCE has gone to Chechnya today.
The Russians obviously feel that they have equal standing there.
NATO is unpopular in Russia, which means that the Partnership for Peace Programme is too.
Opinion polls would suggest that the majority of Russians do have respect for the EU though.
That will probably change after Helsinki.
The OSCE is based on certain principles that were expanded on in Istanbul.
In some internal conflicts and where there are grave violations of human rights, the OSCE can and may take action before actual violence breaks out.
On this basis the OSCE can start playing a more wide-ranging role as a non-exclusive and civil pan-European organisation, also as a forum for open dialogue with Russia.
The OSCE affords a preventative instrument that can be employed where there is the potential for crisis.
The High Commissioner has carried out a great deal of good work for minorities, the OSCE is mediating between government and opposition in Belarus and is helping to find a solution to the problems in Moldavia. The OSCE is also encouraging further reductions in conventional weapons.
The EU ought to pay more attention to OSCE values.
Together we can achieve a great deal.
Chechnya is an example of a conflict that could spread to the whole Caucasus region.
I believe we are failing to give this enough attention.
The European Union' s policy with respect to the countries in this region is fragmented.
Why does the EU not use the OSCE in order to achieve a stability pact for the Caucasus with these countries, the Russian Federation, the United States and Turkey? If another war breaks out there we must not be able to reproach ourselves for yet again having been too late.
Mr President, hardworking Finnish diplomacy has also endeavoured over the last six months to make progress on the employment and social side of the Community.
The creation of an Employment Committee increases the potential for Member States to improve coordination between their policies in this area.
On behalf of the PPE-DE Group, I welcome the fact that the presidency has prepared proper employment guidelines for 2000 at various councils of ministers and ministerial conferences.
Nonetheless, several national governments and the Council have not come fully on board.
As a result, only a small proportion of Parliament' s proposals on the guidelines was adopted in Helsinki.
Parliament wanted to achieve more in the fight against unemployment among the young and long-term unemployment than the Council was proposing; above all, we wanted to achieve permanent integration into the job market by reinforcing the ratio of active to passive measures, in other words, by increasing the proportion of the unemployed in training, further training or retraining, because a lack of jobs is only one side of the coin.
The other reason for unemployment in the European Union is the lack of professional qualifications.
I should like to thank the Finnish Presidency for helping to improve the coordination of European employment policy.
But the Community still has no long-term employment strategy to develop Community potential in terms of creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship, the willingness to invest and the work ethic.
Reforms to bolster dynamic competitiveness and flexibility need to be reconciled with the need both to maintain and to modernise the social security system.
We see the European model as a social order for the social market economy.
Mr President, the economic factor has always taken precedence in the building of Europe.
Without a doubt, its greatest achievements are the single currency and the creation of the European Central Bank.
Aside from their strictly economic significance, which is huge, these institutions are positive proof to the people that the creation of new Community institutions, entrusted with exercising integrated policies in place of the governments or the national bodies of the Member States, is not a betrayal but a more efficient way of jointly exercising national sovereignty.
The lesson learned from the single currency gives us an invaluable weapon for deepening our institutions further, which is essential if we wish to promote enlargement of the Union without endangering its cohesion.
These new and necessary institutional developments or completely new institutions, such as the particularly important military corps that has just been decided on, could lead to dilemmas as to how to divide power between national and Community authorities. But let us not forget the message of EMU: Community institutions are only successful when the principle of subsidiarity is applied and when the power of the larger partners is counterbalanced by protecting the rights of the smaller partners.
All this is arming us for the unusually ambitious enlargement process.
It is not about patching together new pieces of territory, it is about assimilation and transformation under the influence of a Union of truly integrated human societies.
It took a great deal of courage on the part of the Turkish Government to accept the challenge of becoming a candidate country, as a result of which huge social changes are inevitable and will certainly include satisfactory restoration of the rights of the Kurdish nation.
It also took a great deal of courage on the part of the Greek Government and of Prime Minister Costas Simitis to bet on the success of this change, to trust in the possibility of a good outcome and to put out its hand to Turkey and agree to do business with it just as it does business with its European partners, the members of the Union.
Undoubtedly, the fact that Cyprus has been guaranteed unimpeded accession played a large part in the Greek Government' s decision.
All this gives us hope that a new chapter was opened in Helsinki and that this new chapter will be crowned with success.
Mr President, needless to say, I am extremely pleased that the Council has confirmed the viewpoint which was also posited by the Commission, namely that the enlargement of the European Union will be a process in which all Central European countries which have applied for membership will be involved without any discrimination and on the basis of their own merits.
I am pleased that the old biased approach is no longer being pursued.
Although we used to be a European economic community, we now realise that the essence of our alliance is that we are a union of democratic constitutional States.
This is a significant change in our way of thinking and reverts back to the original ideals of European integration.
I think it is important that the Central and Eastern European countries should know that they are joining a smoothly-running Union.
This is why it is so vital that we do our homework and that we cannot get out of it by some excuse like: are we not holding the candidate countries hostage to our reforms? Formulated in this way, it is viewed in completely the wrong manner because those who wish to offer the Central and Eastern European countries a heap of rubble generally tend to object to European integration.
Mr President, Turkey needs a great deal more attention and I am willing to allow for that.
It has now been granted official candidate status.
We have noted this with little enthusiasm.
It appears that it is difficult to change Turkey' s political culture.
The Turkish Government has already stipulated demands before Turkey can accept its Member State candidacy.
This is the culture of brute force, the culture of the big mouth and not the type of culture that we want.
Not from a Member State and certainly not from a candidate country.
In our opinion, the European Union should also make it very clear to Turkey that the treatment it will receive will certainly not be more flexible than that of Slovakia, for example, where the change-over from one government to another was, in fact, a great deal more relaxed.
Turkey will have no choice but to make drastic changes and make steps towards the European Union. There is as yet no evidence of such steps being made.
The European Union should not make the same mistake as the Council of Europe which accepted Turkey some time ago whilst Turkey blatantly contravened the criteria to become a member of the Council of Europe, such as the criteria relating to the protection of minorities and human rights.
Mr President, although it is said that Turkey falls outside the EU borders, in my view, the borders of the European Union coincide with those where democratic constitutional states exist.
It is not so much a new territorial Yalta as an underlining of every effort to bolster the constitutional state.
Mr President, today is a great day for Strasbourg.
I would disagree with Mrs Maij-Weggen.
I believe that Strasbourg is the independent and parliamentary face of a cultural Europe which has freed itself from bureaucracy and, in this respect, I am very happy about events here today.
We could put an end to the travelling circus without changing the Treaty, by doing away with the superfluous mini plenary sittings in Brussels.
We can do so quite independently.
We would start saving money almost immediately.
I invite Mrs Maij-Weggen to support me in this.
As far as the Council is concerned, I take the view that Helsinki was a Summit of peaks and troughs.
One peak was, without a doubt, the clear signal to the second group of central and eastern European countries that they were no longer isolated and that negotiations would be started with them.
I welcome this in particular in the case of Slovakia and the Baltic States.
However, the decision on Chechnya was also extremely important.
Parliament demanded quite clearly two and a half months ago that the Council suspend parts of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and transfer financial aid and the TACIS programme to humanitarian assistance in order to bring home to Russia that it can no longer continue this genocide.
We were opposed at the time in no uncertain terms.
I am very glad that the Council is now living up to the standard which we in Parliament tried to set two and a half months ago.
I would ask the Council and the Commission to ensure that TACIS aid is transferred at once, because we can no longer back a mixture of bloodthirsty election campaigning and bloodthirsty colonial war.
We want Russia as a partner, but only as a partner which respects human rights.
This Parliament stands for a Europe of human rights, as Mr Oostlander said.
Russia can only be a partner if it ceases this genocide immediately.
Mr President, measures and other resolutions on enlargement, on security and defence policy and on the convening of an intergovernmental conference were taken in Helsinki.
All three together may have an historic dimension; however, they may also jeopardise the political project called Europe if we fail to answer the question of where overstretching may mark the end of political union and when the incapacity to act cannot be rectified.
It is precisely for this reason that the intergovernmental conference is so important because only if it demonstrates that it has the power to act and is transparent and democratic in the eyes of the people will it be possible to overcome both the danger of overstretching as the result of enlargement and the incapacity to act.
In my view, it is for this reason that the intergovernmental conference stands at the apex of the enlargement, intergovernmental conference, foreign and security policy triangle, whereby it must be made perfectly clear that at no stage, be it with 12 or with 13 candidate States, can the Copenhagen criteria be watered down and that this Parliament will not permit any such watering down and will not ratify any such treaties.
I believe that the more the Union is reinforced at the intergovernmental conference, the quicker enlargement will be possible.
But, at the same time, this means that the stronger the European Union is made, the more candidate countries must consider if they are prepared to accept the concomitant waiver of sovereignty.
This aspect must also be stressed in connection with Turkey.
Allow me to make one last comment.
Excellent progress has been made with the foreign and security policy.
But for me, one thing is missing; namely both the real involvement of the High Representative in the decision-making structures of the fora and the involvement of the Commission and the External Relations Commissioner in these structures.
These matters have already been raised in the run up.
We must ensure that this functions in practice, otherwise we will have a new intergovernmental event which has nothing new to offer and which only gives rise to new headlines because something is not quite right.
Parliament must ensure that this is put in order.
Mr President, I shall make three very straightforward points.
The first concerns the European Parliament' s relationship to this forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference and its role therein.
Progress has certainly been made by comparison with the previous Intergovernmental Conference, but the most worrying aspect is that the Council had on the table a proposal which would give the European Parliament a greater role, a proposal which would grant it a role similar to the one the Commission will have in these negotiations, and it did not approve this proposal.
As we know, this is the fundamental problem, because it concerns the very nature of the European Parliament. This is not a parliament that functions within the normal constitutional systems of our countries.
It is worth stating here though that we do not accept that the European Parliament should be given a lesser role in a discussion process as important as such a large-scale revision of the Treaty on European Union.
We consider it vital that there should be two representatives of the European Parliament in the preparatory group but we feel that it is less fitting for the European Parliament that the President of the European Parliament, instead of dealing directly with Heads of State and Governments, should be put into a situation in which she is heard before the meetings of the General Affairs Council Ministers.
This is not treatment befitting the European Parliament.
The second issue concerns the content, and we have had occasion to say this in the Brussels mini-session.
The Commission has shown great ambition where enlargement is concerned and little or no ambition in the revision of the Treaty.
We have the Amsterdam leftovers, we have the Treaty' s implications for defence issues and possibly, for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, although this is an open door - or rather an open window - through which the Portuguese Presidency must perform a miracle.
I would say that it is a miracle that could not be performed after Amsterdam.
And this is what concerns us. If only the leftovers from Amsterdam remain, the discussion will be about efficiency and not about the European Union project.
The discussion could be about political manoeuvring and could lead to rule by a board of management.
From this point of view, the Commission has a crucial role in ensuring that the agenda of the IGC is not dictated by the lowest common denominator of each State' s interests, but rather that it has a global vision of the European Union project.
This is why the Commission cannot abdicate its responsibilities and must present specific proposals to this effect.
Finally, Mr President, I would like to highlight two issues concerning the forthcoming Portuguese Presidency: the Summit on employment, which I consider to be very important and which should have been studied more carefully by this House, and the fact that priority should be given to the protection of public health and food safety.
Finally, I have a question for the Council, although I am not sure if it is represented here today, Mr President, to answer this question: what is the future of the Euro-African Summit scheduled for the next six-month term?
Mr President, the presidency has set out two propositions in the Helsinki conclusions, namely that an efficient and credible enlargement process must be sustained and that applicant countries are participating in the accession process on an equal footing.
When this is set against the fact that candidate status has been granted to Turkey and the simultaneous statement that there will be a conference in the spring of 2000, in which Turkey will not take part, then it is clear that this candidate status has been granted prematurely and is a blank cheque which will come bouncing back.
Even the improvements within Turkey noted by the Commission and the Council presidency must be subject to cautious appraisal when you think about the death penalty being upheld for Mr Öçalan, the fact that the Sakharov prize-winner Leyla Zana is still in prison because she stood up for her right to freedom of speech, the fact that the Kurdish question has not been resolved and all the other aspects of this document in connection with progress in Turkey.
Discussions on stage and in the wings clearly show that Europe is not being frank when it comes to Turkey.
The Helsinki conclusions are extremely positive in other areas, such as foreign and security policy and defence policy; but when it comes to Turkey' s membership, they are contradictory in the extreme.
There is a danger that far too much is being expected of Europe as regards this part of the enlargement process and that too much is being expected of Turkey itself.
Anyone who wants to be a member must be prepared to become a member on our terms.
I read that Mr Ecevit stressed at the conference that Turkey had a fundamental right to membership of the European Union.
I consider that a very risky statement.
I am not sure that the political classes in Turkey have any idea of what is in store for them when they have to waive sovereign rights.
We therefore consider that this decision by the Summit was rushed and inappropriate.
If you read the conditions, which state that negotiations with Turkey will still not begin and that Turkey will just have candidate status, i.e. no separate legal instrument has been opened, then this means - as it says here - that the UNO must endeavour to settle disputes, which should be settled by 2004 on the basis of UNO resolutions.
These are all things which, in our view, do not justify giving Turkey candidate status at this point in time.
Once Turkey joins, Europe will have to undergo a radical change of face and objectives.
Mr Prodi himself said that we must urgently discuss values and borders.
For us, an independent approach is the best alternative: security partnership, further development of customs union and permanent political dialogue, rather than announcing candidate status which, in the final analysis, is worth nothing and is more likely to create than to solve problems.
I have received 14 motions for resolutions, in accordance with Rule 37(2), to close this debate.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00 p.m. and on Thursday at 12.00 p.m.
2000 budget
Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to present to you today the outcome of the second reading by the Council of the draft budget for 2000, which takes account of the amendments by the European Parliament.
I would also like to take this opportunity to explain to you in more detail the Council' s proposal for financing aid to Kosovo in 2000.
We know some of you still think that the financial perspectives for the period 2000 - 2006 are too tight and that the ceiling for category 4 is too low.
We think, however, that the maximum figure is right for the year 2000, which is what we now have to decide on.
For those unprecedented needs, which Kosovo has brought with it, the Council believes we can use an instrument of flexibility for the time being.
We understand very well the concern Parliament feels about this year' s budgetary procedure.
I believe, however, that our common goal is to give the people of Kosovo the aid they urgently require without any undue delay.
Our common goal at the same time is to preserve aid for other recipients, above all the poorest countries in the world.
For that reason, we have been inclined to refer to our original position to a large extent.
One benefit of the new interinstitutional agreement is the opportunity it gives for an extended conciliation procedure, as a result of which Parliament has had many opportunities to set forth its views and, correspondingly, hear the views of others.
We were often in touch with MEPs, especially Mr Wynn, Mr Bourlanges and Mr Colom i Naval in order to find a balanced solution to the issue of conciliation, which would make it possible for us to enjoy a stable economic policy in 2000, one which will help to preserve a good spirit of interinstitutional cooperation in the years to come as well.
Now that these contacts have been established the Council is ready to fully adopt a flexibility clause.
It is precisely in this way that an interinstitutional agreement offers the opportunity to adapt the financial perspectives in unexpected circumstances.
The Council is also prepared to adopt the recitals and statements, which are an essential part of the conciliation package and which leave scope for negotiation, which we will be entering into next year regarding category 4 financing, such as that which affects the Western Balkans.
We do not think, however, that the ceiling for category 4 would need to be amended permanently, but rather by means of a flexibility instrument.
The main reason for that is that Kosovo, which has fewer than two million inhabitants, can accept and use only a limited amount of aid properly, which is a lot less than what was originally anticipated.
The Council agrees with the European Parliament that appropriations, which are to be granted to Kosovo for the year 2000, are much less than what the Commission originally asked for.
However, as the total needed for 2000 is relatively small, i.e. considerably less than the EUR 400 million from the budget, which in itself is worth a good EUR 90 billion or more, and because it has not yet been possible for the Commission to determine the requirements for every year after 2000, there is clearly no technical need at the moment for permanently amending the financial perspectives.
The Council also believes that the institutions of the European Union require a certain amount of stability and seriousness to maintain their credibility.
Any breach of the agreement we sign or any adjustment made to it would immediately cause irrevocable damage to the Community' s external image and its reputation.
We must show that we leaders of the European Union are engaged in serious work, that we take prudent decisions after they have been carefully planned and discussed, and that we keep to these decisions and our agreements afterwards.
I would now like to explain to you in slightly more detail what the Council' s proposal regarding category 4 contains and why it meets the demands of the European Parliament in terms of financing.
The first benefit of the package the Council is proposing is that it offers ways and means to finance aid to Kosovo and East Timor in concrete terms, without it being at the expense of any other recipient of aid.
I know that it goes against all the rules of rhetoric to mention figures, but at this stage I also have to do just that.
We have proceeded in such a way as to establish the budget for 2000, and, unfortunately, the budget is simply about figures.
The European Parliament and the Council agree that EUR 360 million in aid should go to Kosovo in 2000.
The Commission has told us that we could transfer EUR 60 million out of the budget funds for 1999, for use in 2000.
This means that we have EUR 300 million in aid to Kosovo to charge to the 2000 budget.
EUR 60 million from the Obnova programme and EUR 20 million from the ECHO programme was already included in your first reading, however, and that would be used for Kosovo in any case.
We accept that EUR 40 million can in addition be used from transfers in 2000.
We also know that the European Parliament wishes to grant EUR 20 million in aid to East Timor.
180 and 20 make 200.
This is precisely the sum the Council proposed should be spent in connection with the flexibility instrument in addition to the ceiling allowed for category 4 in the financial perspectives.
In other words the Council is proposing to pay for all these new funds itself, funds that are needed in their entirety for vital aid to Kosovo and East Timor in 2000, as far as exceeding the current ceiling in the financial perspectives is concerned. In this way, there would not be any need for the retargeting of appropriations or cuts in aid to other recipients.
This was one of the wishes of the European Parliament, and the Council is proposing to fulfil this wish in its entirety.
Although the current aim is just to draft the budget for 2000, the Commission has already said in a statement published in the Official Journal of the European Communities regarding next year that it intends to propose an aid programme by April 2000 for the Western Balkans for the period 2000 - 2006 in connection with a proposal for an amendment to the financial perspectives.
The European Parliament and the Council agree in another statement that such a multiannual programme should be drafted.
At present such a programme has not been proposed, however.
For that reason, we can for now only deal with the programme for 2000, which is urgent, and examine the Commission' s proposals next year, when they are known.
The Council has repeatedly said it considers cooperation with the European Parliament to be very important when the budget is being drafted.
This has not been just an empty declaration, but it has also had practical consequences.
The Council adopted, for example, almost all the European Parliament' s amendments relating to administrative expenditure, many of which concerned internal policies, which we know are of special interest to you.
We likewise approved the sums that Parliament added to such programmes as Socrates, Leonardo, equality between women and men, Altener, Synergy, Life and all the action programmes in the areas of health and research, and many others.
The Council also adopted the new policy for clearly determining the administrative costs of action programmes and monitoring offices concerned with technical assistance.
This was also one of the priority aims of the European Parliament this year.
The Council furthermore approved the increase of EUR 50 million in appropriations for food safety that Parliament held to be important.
Then I would like to mention OLAF, the European Fraud Prevention Office, as an example of where interinstitutional cooperation can lead.
The regulations and the whole legal framework in general for establishing OLAF, despite the complexity of the operation, became, thanks to the close cooperation between the Parliament and the Council, the first codecision procedure to reach a decision on one reading, and, in addition, in a record time of five months.
In addition to this - also thanks to close cooperation between Parliament and the Council - additional budgets 4 and 5 were promptly adopted in 1999, and the letter of amendment 2 for the 2000 budget is now about to be adopted.
All this will allow us to almost double the OLAF staff within a year.
Finally, the European Parliament and the Council seem to have reached agreement today on a new OLAF director, as a result of which OLAF will become fully capable of fulfilling its functions.
We all know that the path of solitude, and the apparent freedom it offers, might seem more alluring sometimes than the obligations that cooperation imposes.
However, we believe that through strategies of cooperation we can usually achieve better results for the Community as a whole and that they are more beneficial to each party involved than aggressive strategies.
The Council is thus offering its cooperation as a means of financing aid to Kosovo and East Timor in 2000.
This will mean the urgently needed substantial sums will go to Kosovo and East Timor without any unwarranted delays.
This proposal means these needs will be financed entirely by means of the flexibility instrument as far as exceeding the current ceiling in the financial perspectives is concerned, without taking funds away from any other areas.
The Council is also prepared for a solution where payment appropriations may be cut by EUR 2 billion by combining compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure.
The Council has thus shown it is willing to accept the wishes of Parliament by adopting the new amendments, which are important to you, and by making this proposition concerning Kosovo and East Timor, in which we have tried very hard to take account of your concerns.
The Council therefore hopes that the European Parliament will make its decision on the budget on the basis of the Council' s proposal.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, we find ourselves in a truly strange, a truly curious situation.
We voted on the first reading three months ago.
We negotiated assiduously in the various fora.
The Commission produced its rectifying letter, the Council voted for the budget at its second reading and the Committee on Budgets last week adopted its own second reading.
All the discussions should have been completed.
We were supposed to proceed to the vote on Thursday but, apparently, now that everything is ready to go ahead, the Council is continually determining its position.
I say "determining its position" but this is really just an expression, as in fact it is changing it imperceptibly.
This is in the domain of what Jean Paulhan, the noted French writer, used to call "Progress in Love on the Slow Side" , the title of a very interesting book which I recommend.
Progress in these matters is on the slow side, apparently, and still remains to be completed.
We are waiting for progress with an impatience which is becoming truly alarming, for we do not understand why the Council has, for weeks, been incapable of saying clearly exactly what it is prepared to accept or not.
We see this prevarication as the evidence of the increasing worrying paralysis of this institution, witness the report I made last year on the operational problems of the Council.
We experienced this in some conciliation meetings which were considered highly traumatic by the majority of my fellow Members, less seasoned in battle than Mr Wynn, myself or Mr Colom i Naval, who are familiar with this type of thing and who know it is never very easy.
The fact is, the conciliation procedure has been extremely tough and, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourself adopted some overly rash positions.
So, what is the position? I have no idea!
This evening a three-way dialogue is to take place. Will you be making proposals to us?
I do not see how you can make proposals today if you were unable to make them yesterday, or last Wednesday, or a fortnight ago, but perhaps you possess the secret of modifying the views of your members?
In this context, what is the position of Parliament? What are we looking to achieve through the compromise?
Well, we are after five things. Firstly, the second reading vote should be as close as possible to the first reading vote in Parliament.
Our vote reflected our political orientation. What is the state of play?
The various scenarios in this regard are satisfactory.
In the initial phase of the procedure, we received a proposal for a reduction of approximately EUR 500 million from category 4 in relation to the preliminary draft budget.
In the compromise we voted on, we have a reduction of only EUR 150 million, not in relation to the PDB but in relation to our vote at first reading.
As far as the remainder is concerned, i.e. categories 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, nothing has been changed.
One might safely say that Parliament has been satisfied on this point, subject of course to resolution of the Kosovo issue, which I shall return to.
As the President-in-Office of the Council mentioned, the major commitments which we had, regarding the Fisheries Agreement, Timor and Turkey, have also been taken into consideration, which, again, is satisfactory.
Our second objective was to have Kosovo financed at a level above the ceiling of heading 4.
As it happens, after a difficult beginning, we consider that the proposal to use the flexibility clause, although not the most suitable instrument, intended to provide financial aid for Kosovo of EUR 200 million above the category is satisfactory in itself, and indeed enables us, if we are in agreement as to the remainder, to have a satisfactory approach to providing financial aid for Kosovo for the year concerned.
I note, moreover, that the final proposal is even higher than the initial proposals of the Commission, which it should be aware of.
Our third objective was the review of the financial perspectives beyond the financial year 2000.
Our success in this respect has been much more limited and, in my opinion, extremely uncertain.
We have here a commitment which has two negative aspects in relation to what we actually wanted: firstly, the review is to concern just the Balkans as a whole, whereas we consider that it is the Kosovo issue which justifies it and, secondly, this commitment is a conditional one.
The amounts of the appropriations allocated to the Balkans, resulting from the estimates made by the Commission and accepted by the Council, should be markedly higher than those in existing programmes.
I am afraid that in fact, in the mind of the Council, review of the financial perspectives might be centred on the disappearance of Comrade Milosevic.
I find this point of view worrying for, when I see what has happened to Saddam Hussein, I think that dictators sometimes have a longer lifetime than might be desirable.
So, the question remains.
Finally, our fourth objective: we wanted the measures undertaken on behalf of the Balkans to be based on a serious, multiannual and binding estimate of needs.
In that respect, we are far short of the target.
It was indeed sufficient to hear the speech of the President-in-Office of the Council just now. She had a fear and dread of quoting figures and was speaking a language which seemed to have gone through some double translation process, ensuring that no one could understand a word in the end.
But in any case, this dancing around the figures spoke volumes and indicated that we are in fact building on a rather unsatisfactory foundation.
The estimates are not serious ones.
We have gone from EUR 500 million, a figure adopted chiefly for the number of zeros in it and its ease of pronunciation.
Next, everyone, except ourselves, started making estimates, saying: let us take away EUR 140 million, put humanitarian aid to one side, add the accounts, etc, and suddenly coming up with the figures required.
The fact is there has been no serious estimate of needs founded on a clear distinction between the measures necessary for the repair of war damage, for the modernisation of the country and for the modernisation of its society.
We were awaiting serious commitments, multiannual commitments, binding commitments.
In this respect, the compromise is not satisfactory, in my opinion, if not in the opinion of all the members of the Committee on Budgets.
Finally, the terms of the compromise were for a moderate reduction of payment appropriations.
If we had had recourse to Article 272, then we should have had to make savings of 2.8 billion from the non-compulsory expenditure.
Obviously, this was the reason we rejected this prospect, so as not to make cuts as extensive as this.
Such were the terms of the compromise.
To assess the results, we are satisfied on two counts.
We are only partly satisfied as to the review, not satisfied at all regarding the estimate of needs in Kosovo, and may or may not be satisfied regarding the reduction of payment appropriations, a matter on which I hope you will change position.
What are we going to do now?
What is our scenario? In my opinion, the compromise is not acceptable, chiefly due to the inadequate estimates for Kosovo, which mean that we are acting irresponsibly, squandering taxpayers' money.
This is why, as far as I am concerned, whatever the decision of the Committee on Budgets, if we were to go once again to a compromise, then I should abstain on this budget.
As far as my fellow committee members are concerned, the main thing is to reduce payment appropriations. Will it be done?
Will you do it? I have no idea.
We shall see what you are prepared to say shortly.
What we voted on within the Committee on Budgets, and what we have proposed to you, is simple.
Firstly, we shall not resort to Article 272, to prevent our strangulation on the matter of payment.
Secondly, we shall take category 4 up to the maximum limit.
Without financing Kosovo, except in the amount of EUR 115 million, by adding the accounts which are presented, i.e. with Mr Mingasson and Mrs Schreyer acting as treasurer, on a monthly basis.
We are acting as treasurer for Kosovo, on a monthly basis we are giving them the means to pay for the things they have to have done and we are awaiting a serious, overall estimate of needs in Kosovo and in the Balkans.
And then we reconvene together with the Council and the Commission to finally discuss the key issues, i.e. a satisfactory estimate for Kosovo, an overall estimate for the Balkans and then a review of the financial perspectives, a satisfactory estimate for the Balkans.
This is what we are doing.
It is not a war plan, it is a plan for cooperation.
We need another three months to be able to get estimates which are satisfactory onto the table, and then we shall reconvene.
This is the scenario we envisage.
Madam, do not take it as a declaration of war, but if you respond to our vote in the same way that the Marquise de Merteuil responded to the Vicomte de Valmont in "Dangerous Liaisons" , well then, this war is not one that we would wish but it is one that we would see through.
In that case we would have recourse to Article 272 on reasonable grounds regarding 2001.
But this is not the scenario we envisage.
We are offering you a scenario of cooperation with an agreement which has been postponed for a few months, and in any case with the certainty, for the Commission, that Kosovo will receive the necessary financial aid.
Thank you, Mr President, for your indulgence.
Mr President, the budget for the year 2000 is, for the institutions other than the Commission, very simple.
The Council has adopted all of Parliament' s amendments.
It has also given its approval to Parliament' s own budget through a gentlemen' s agreement, which means they have not interfered in it at all. I would like to express my sincerest thanks for that.
In the reading of next year' s budget, however, a position has to be taken on the change which was not in the original estimate.
I refer to the situation which was caused by the fact that the Court of First Instance approved the TDI group as a parliamentary political group.
According to parliamentary rules, this group has the right to a staff of 14.
The Secretary-General obtained the staffing resources by reallocating twelve of the fourteen staff necessary.
To make good the difference the Council of Presidents finally proposed two new temporary C5 posts and one A6 post.
So that this issue would be debated according to Parliament' s agenda, the Committee on Budgets called for compliance with Article 183.
The President sent a preliminary draft for the budget, which the Committee debated yesterday and adopted by virtue of the report on the proposal.
This report is now being debated in connection with next year' s budget, and we intend to vote on it tomorrow, Wednesday, when it is hoped the Commission will also present its preliminary letter of amendment in accordance with practice. In this way the Council could debate and approve these matters on Wednesday, so that the issue might be dealt with in connection with the rest of the budget on Thursday 16 December.
What has happened does not mean that more money is being asked for next year' s budget, but only to create posts.
However, it shows how ponderous and cumbersome our administrative procedures are.
There is a total of 1700 different C posts in the European Parliament.
Of these, some are vacant and some are to become so.
For that reason, it is urgent that we make the current administrative rules in Parliament more flexible, as they hamper the smooth and proper flow of administration.
The European Parliament is now adding new posts in connection with the budget now being discussed, which is not consistent with disciplined financial administration - not, at least, if we compare the additions to those in the previous five years.
We cannot nor must not, however, leave disciplined budgetary policy to the responsibility of the Committee on Budgets: it is naturally the Council of Presidents and the chairmen of the political groups that bear the greatest responsibility, especially where Parliament is concerned.
Finally I would like to say a few words in general about budgetary procedure.
The biggest problem this year was category 4: external action. During the debate new items of expenditure were added to it.
First there was the EUR 500 million proposed by the European Union Summit conference for Kosovo. Then, later, we had the fisheries agreement with Morocco; and then Turkey and other headings totalling 190 million euros or nearly EUR 700 million altogether, which represents 15% of the financial perspectives.
As the budget for 1999 had already very nearly reached its ceiling, it was really quite difficult to suppose that such great degrees of flexibility might be found in other areas of expenditure.
Among the members of the Council there had been no desire to alter the financial perspectives, at least up till now, and then not even now, not even by means of transfers between categories.
Furthermore, as a counterweight to the use of the flexibility instrument, immense reductions in other areas of expenditure were being and are being asked for.
Thus, the task of the Committee on Budgets was a very simple one: to adapt the budget to the financial perspectives.
As a result, only EUR 100 million were allocated to Kosovo in the budget at this stage.
The Council dropped its earlier estimate of EUR 500 million to 360 million.
From this we may draw at least two conclusions.
Before aid is promised in the name of the European Union, it would perhaps be in order to check whether the promises can be kept.
Such promises, which mean making corresponding cuts elsewhere, have clearly to be considered carefully.
The same also goes for long-term programmes.
If the EU means to spend EUR 5.5 billion on the reconstruction of the whole Balkans area over the next six or seven years, which is to say EUR 800 - 900 million a year, it would be useful to know how the promise is going to be backed in terms of finance.
In this respect, the report by the Committee on Budgets now under discussion is relevant, as it emphasises the need to be realistic.
Secondly, the European Union has two budgetary authorities, Parliament being one of them.
Parliament has not accepted this duty and these obligations: the Member States have imposed them.
As Parliament is one of the budgetary authorities, it also bears a responsibility, and this is a fact that cannot be ignored in the workings of the EU.
During the last few days and weeks, the negotiations have been - at least in my view - talk about very minor matters, as nearly each one of the finance ministers of the Member States and even their state secretaries handle certainly much larger sums on their own.
In so saying, I do not want to criticise the country holding the presidency, which has certainly done everything necessary to achieve harmony.
We need a budget for next year, and it must be achieved.
If we do not get agreement we will have to continue the talks in January.
Finally, I would like to congratulate the main rapporteur, Jean-Louis Bourlanges, for his excellent work, which is obviously still continuing, and thank him and the chairman of the Committee on Budgets, Terence Wynn, for their good and constructive cooperation and the diverse range of support they gave.
Likewise, I wish to thank the group' s coordinators, especially Mr Böge of the PPE-DE Group and Mr Walter of the PSE Group for their good cooperation, and all the members of the committee.
My special thanks go to Suvi-Anne Siimes, for her role as person responsible for the Council' s budget, and who has really got to grips with her job and applied herself to it conscientiously.
I would like to especially thank Heikki Joustie, who was involved as official representative, and who made his own splendid contribution in circumstances that were unusually awkward as far as the international situation was concerned.
Mr President, Madam Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the results of the Helsinki Summit were presented and debated this morning.
The decisions to come out of Helsinki have far-reaching consequences for the future of the Union, namely the resolutions on the enlargement strategy, on the intergovernmental conference and on the common foreign and security policy.
The Finnish Presidency dealt with a huge agenda; the Summit was a success, a good conclusion to 1999 and, with the Millennium Declaration, a good start for the future.
It would be therefore be a great pity if we were unable to announce a satisfactory conclusion to the budgetary procedure.
The new budget for 2000 will serve as a clear basis for sound policies.
The budgetary procedure has involved difficult negotiations but I have no intention of reviewing the entire process.
We have now reached the point where there is fundamental agreement on fundamental points.
The Council and Parliament have agreed, as Minister Siimes has just explained, that the entire flexibility reserve may be used for financing expenditure on Kosovo.
Most importantly, it has been agreed - and this was particularly important to Parliament, quite rightly, in my view - that an important political statement is being made, namely that the tasks of the European Union in Kosovo and in the Balkans are tasks which extend over several years and that, in order to honour these tasks financially, we may need to increase expenditure on foreign policy in comparison with the expenditure forecast at the beginning of this year, when we based our assessment on a somewhat different political situation.
In order to be able to finance these additional requirements over coming years and, above all, in order to remain within the overall framework decided in Berlin for coming years, the financial perspective may need to be changed or reviewed. It is precisely the combination of new priorities, together with budgetary discipline, which may mean that we need to change the financial perspective.
At present the Commission - and this has been stressed here - is unable to submit the exact financing requirements for the Balkans as a whole.
The Commission, my colleague Mr Patten in particular, and the administration are still hard at work on this.
However, the World Bank and the Commission have produced a very accurate study of reconstruction in Kosovo, which shows that a total of 2.3 billion dollars or euros will be needed in external aid over the next few years to repair not only war damage but the cumulative damage which has arisen as a result of the fact that the political situation in Kosovo over recent years has led to a disaster in human terms.
There is an immediate need for a large sum of money, because we cannot in fact say that rebuilding houses or restoring schools and the power supply is a task for tomorrow.
No, it is a task for today.
There is an urgent need, and I hope that we are still able to find a solution which does not put these needs off until tomorrow but tackles them today.
Agreement has been reached on entering EUR 300 million under the budget for the year 2000, in addition to the EUR 60 million redeployed from this year, and on considering the EUR 140 million granted at the donor conference as part of the funds promised for the year 2001.
Important decisions were also taken at Helsinki on the enlargement of the European Union.
Negotiations with the six candidate States are continuing and negotiations with six new candidate States have commenced.
The budget includes pre-accession aid which will rise from EUR 1.3 billion this year to EUR 3.1 billion next year.
New programmes are being funded in agriculture, infrastructure aid and transport and the environment, thereby paving the way for the candidate countries to join the Union.
The deployment of these appropriations will be very closely observed by my services in the form of financial control.
The financial control system forms a separate chapter in the negotiations.
In order to be able to estimate expenditure which may accrue for enlargement - the Berlin financial framework includes expenditure from 2000 onwards -, I shall suggest to the Commission that there be permanent screening of the economic situation and the enlargement expenditure needed as a result.
The peoples of the Member States must also be clear that enlargement is not a financial roller coaster.
The budget 2000 includes EUR 32 billion in commitments to support structural policy in the Member States.
The new programming period for 2000 to 2006 can therefore start being funded and it is starting with a new programme which emphasises that aid from the structural funds should, at the same time, help to improve gender equality, environmental protection and the employment situation.
I can assure you that we shall remind Member States quite clearly of their duty to deploy the appropriations so that these objectives can be achieved.
The budget 2000 includes EUR 41 billion for agricultural policy.
I should like to draw attention to the appropriations deployed for the second pillar of agricultural policy, namely for programmes to promote rural development.
The European Parliament fought intensively for this second pillar of the agricultural policy.
I shall do my very best to ensure that the programmes in this area get off to a good start.
I should also like to mention that the number of posts at the anti-fraud office will be increased under budget 2000 - this has already been mentioned - so that the OLAF is equipped to carry out its task.
I should also like to stress - and the credit here goes in particular to the rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges - that the Commission is to examine its entire system for outsourcing activities to Technical Assistance Offices.
More importantly, Mr Bourlanges has proposed that a new administrative unit be set up which is similar in structure to the agencies.
The Commission has agreed on a timetable for reforming the system used hitherto.
I should like at this point to extend my warmest thanks to the rapporteurs, Messrs Bourlanges, Virrankoski and Colom i Naval - even if your report has not been tabled for discussion today - and, above all, to the chairman and members of the Committee on Budgets for their intensive work over recent months.
I should also like to thank the Council and to congratulate you, Minister Siimes, on your Finnish Presidency of the Council.
I understand that you proposed a solution to the final differences between the Council and the European Parliament in the overall process, namely that payment appropriations be reduced by EUR 2 billion.
I think that this should be stressed here once again.
The strength of the European institutions lies in finding compromises and in forging compromises.
The negotiations were long, but we are now at the point at which agreement can be reached.
It is now a question of seizing the opportunity to get the budget 2000 and the new year off to a good start and I urge Parliament to do so.
Mr President, could I first of all say on behalf of my committee how much I welcome the remarks by the President-in-Office, which raise the prospect that we might be able to reach agreement on the budget very quickly.
I would also like to congratulate the Finnish Presidency on taking us so far.
At this moment I can only give two cheers for her statement because I do not understand what she said as regards Heading 4.
She said that the Council does not want the ceiling for Heading 4 to be amended permanently.
Does that mean therefore that we will continue to operate Heading 4 on an ad hoc basis, that we will use a flexibility clause every year and therefore have a pretence that we have no change to the financial perspective when the reality is of course different? I would advise caution in this case because, as Mr Bourlanges has said, we are dealing with an unpredictable situation in the Balkans, not only in relation to Mr Milosevic but also the death of Mr Tudjman.
These events raise questions about the long-term feasibility of the course we are pursuing at the moment.
I would like some clarification on that point.
It has been a historic year in many ways, as the Commission, I am sure, would rather forget some of the more dramatic moments back in the spring, in the same way as some of us would rather forget some of the more dramatic election results of the summer!
But let us not forget why the Commission was forced to resign: fraud and mismanagement, those were the main points.
That is why this year's budget really had to reflect the need to tighten up procedures for budget control; and as the rapporteur for the 2000 budget, and on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would like to welcome once again the establishment of the new body to fight fraud and the new OLAF posts reflected in this year's budget.
The process of appointing the OLAF director is now well advanced.
The Committee on Budgetary Control held hearings with the candidates and produced a shortlist of three people, and I understand that tonight there will be a meeting to try to thrash out a decision between the representatives of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.
Let us not forget that the technical assistance offices were also a big problem in the forced resignation of the Commission.
The Commission's strategic issues paper adopted on 10 December concluded that core public service tasks should not be outsourced and that the Commission should have at its disposal a much more flexible set of arrangements for non-core public service tasks.
That is something with which I wholeheartedly agree.
The Commission now performs such a wide variety of diverse functions that non-core public service tasks could be carried out in very many different ways.
There is no point in having a one-size-fits-all model for carrying out such tasks.
What we need to do is to reform the Staff Regulations so we can have flexibility in hiring contractual staff to service these offices.
Mr President, if we have understood the President-in-Office of the Council correctly, then this message, that the Council is moving towards Parliament' s position, is an important one.
After the events of the last few weeks, I am pleased to hear the message but I lack faith.
Which is why we need an exact overview of what this message in fact means.
Parliament has taken great pains to move towards the Council' s position over recent weeks. Until the end, any such effort on the part of the Council was minimal.
And if there is any now, we must ask, why not a moment earlier because, if the situation really is as we have understood it - and I still have my doubts - then we now have problems with how, technically, we are supposed to ensure that everything goes according to plan.
Until that has been clarified, as far as I am concerned, the decision of the Committee on Budgets taken yesterday evening still stands.
Specialist committees are very dependent upon the rapporteur to do their business for them.
I am happy to say that Mr Bourlanges this year has been a reliable colleague and negotiated well on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy.
He has pursued his own ideas and those of the Committee on Budgets at the same time, in particular his wish for administrative expenditure to be clearly identified so that monitoring can be carried out.
We are happy to support him in that.
We are pleased with the compromise on the fifth framework programme which allows us to monitor effectively but does not mean that managing the programmes becomes impossible for the Commission.
As far as energy is concerned, we are disappointed with the relatively small sums allocated for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
We shall be back with suggestions next year.
On the whole we are satisfied.
We will monitor very carefully the money that we shall be voting for on Thursday.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking now as the rapporteur of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.
I must say that the budget which has now been tabled is indeed a social budget because this time, with our corrections, it takes clear account of employment policy measures.
This means that anyone who wants action in favour of families, anyone who wants young trainees to be able to gain experience abroad and anyone who really wants to combat social exclusion will vote in favour of our proposed amendments the day after tomorrow.
Anyone who wants the European employment strategy to be paid more than lip service and to be more than an item on Summit agendas but who wants the European employment strategy to be anchored at local level will vote, I am sure, in favour of our new employment policy initiatives.
A social Europe also has strong trade union and employer associations in permanent dialogue with each other.
It is never too early to start exporting this model of success to Central and Eastern Europe.
Which is why we have reversed the Council' s cutbacks here.
Mr President, could I first join with some of my other colleagues in thanking the rapporteur for the work that he has done this year.
As someone who was responsible for the budget on behalf of the Committee on Environment for the first time, I found him very helpful and very considerate of the points I made - not agreeing with everything but nevertheless being very fair-minded.
I would also like to welcome the decisions taken by the Council and the Commission.
The decision with regard to the money for Kosovo is helpful and their other agreements have, generally speaking, made the Committee on the Environment relatively happy.
I am glad Mrs Schreyer mentioned earlier the additional monies for the Veterinary Office which are particularly important if we want them to deal with the problems that have arisen because of the BSE crisis, the dioxin crisis in Belgium and of course the continued work in Portugal.
That money is necessary and we are very pleased that you agreed to it.
In the area of health, we have had some very small and moderate improvements.
The budget headings for the Committee on the Environment generally concern very small amounts but they have enabled us to start the preparatory research that will help us develop the issue of health competence under the Amsterdam Treaty.
The sum involved is small but it is important.
As regards consumers, there we are pleased to see that the agreement reached on the Whitehead report and the conciliation on the Whitehead report last year has been honoured and the money will come through.
We are looking forward to that bringing general benefits in the coming year.
As regards the area of the environment, the most important outstanding measure of course is the Lienemann report and the conciliation on LIFE and we are optimistic that we will get a reasonable result there.
I would however make one final plea.
The question of the money for the drugs agency is urgent now that we will approve the orphan drugs regulation in February.
Something must be done quickly.
Could I, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Transport and Tourism, acknowledge the progress that is being made by the Council and in particular by the Committee on Budgets in addressing our concerns.
We, as a committee, fully endorse the approach adopted by the Committee on Budgets in all areas but in particular would highlight their efforts to increase the payment appropriations under the structural funds.
Secondly, we would highlight their attempt to restore the cuts in the INTERREG programme by some EUR 33 million in the payments, restoring that heading to the budget.
Thirdly, we would thank them for their efforts to restore the unacceptable cuts in the transport safety heading; we welcome the progress made there.
Fourthly and finally, we welcome progress in restoring the cuts in the environmentally sustainable transport heading.
We endorse all their efforts so far and would also add our backing to their insistence that 20% of the payment appropriations go into reserve for the Community INTERREG and URBAN initiatives, pending the satisfactory adoption of the guidelines.
You have our full support, Mr Bourlanges, and we hope that Parliament endorses the Committee on Budgets' proposals in the vote this week.
This is the third time I have had the responsibility of being draftsman on the budget for the Committee on Culture and I would particularly like to thank Mr Bourlanges, the budget rapporteur, for his help and cooperation.
I have time to make only two points.
One is regularly made: culture and education are important for Europe, not just for the past but for the future of our continent.
We neglect them at our peril and, by continuing year after year to spend less on our cultural and educational programmes than we spend on growing tobacco, we are not just neglecting them, we are turning our priorities completely upside down.
With so little to spend, it is important that we spend it efficiently and effectively.
Secondly, are you aware that today, 14 December 1999, the European Youth Orchestra, the European Youth Parliament, the Yehudi Menuhin Foundation, to name just three, are yet to receive the subsidies that we voted for them for this year? They are told the cheques are in the post.
I am afraid their bank managers are not so ready to accept that excuse.
Much is promised but, sadly, not a lot of it is delivered.
This is a comment that I think applies just a shade too often where Europe is concerned.
I urge the Commissioner never to let this happen again.
Mr President, Mr Bourlanges, the proposal you put forward is, shall we say, reasonable.
It makes it possible to release EUR 115 million to finance Kosovo, while waiting for a realistic evaluation of requirements, covered, if necessary, by the vote on a SAB next spring, and this is no bad thing.
We have also had to effect savings of EUR 150 million, i.e. further budget cuts to the lines of heading 4 in order to finance new priorities: Timor, Turkey and the Fisheries Agreement with Morocco, which are not in the exclusive domain of external action of the Union, but which we have accepted.
It must be pointed out that these are heavy sacrifices, especially since this proposal envisages taking EUR 35 million out of ECHO appropriations, a deduction which is presented as a loan, one whose repayment seems highly uncertain.
Nonetheless we shall be fighting for that.
So, of course I support your proposal but, as you will understand, I support it without enthusiasm.
I simply wish to express, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, my concern regarding this budget 2000 which, if the financial perspectives are not reviewed, places the burden of all the sacrifices on the poorest countries.
We join forces, however, with the position of the Committee on Budgets and I wish my fellow Members on that committee good luck in the forthcoming three-way dialogue.
Ladies and gentlemen, we shall adjourn the debate on the budget which will resume this evening at 9 p.m.
Shall I ask the Commission if it is prepared to make its declaration?
Meanwhile, and until the Commissioner arrives, I give the floor to the Council, which would like to speak - I think - about Helsinki.
Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, I just wish to refer to the speech I gave.
I actually said that at present the Council believes there is no need to amend the frameworks of the 2000 budget permanently, and we have proposed the use of the flexibility instrument with regard to category 4.
Thank you very much, Madam President-in-Office of the Council.
We shall adjourn the sitting for a few minutes while we wait for the representative of the Council to arrive.
Commission communication - Decisions taken at that day' s meeting
The next item is the communication by the Commission on the decisions taken at today' s meeting.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much, and I would firstly like to congratulate the President.
The Commission met here in Strasbourg this afternoon and took the following decisions, which I shall now relay to you.
Firstly, it decided to give France a reasoned opinion with a deadline of five days in which to respond concerning the ban on British beef.
The Commission took three further decisions on the application of Regulation No 4064/89 concerning merger control and on Regulation No 17/62 in application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, imposing fines ranging from EUR 100 000 to EUR 3 000 for each company that has supplied incorrect information in response to requests for information that have been made to them.
The Commission also adopted a communication which defines the objectives and the principles of the Community medium-term audiovisual policy and which establishes a strategy for the so-called "digital" age.
The communication contains several principles that in the Commission' s opinion should be applied to the regulation of the audiovisual sector and to its support mechanisms.
Closely linked to this communication, the Commission approved another one, together with a proposal for a decision by the European Parliament and the Council and a proposal for a decision by the Council relating to a programme of support for the European audiovisual industry, which is the MEDIA PLUS 2001-2005 programme.
The communication contains a renewed vision and principles for intervention relating to the MEDIA PLUS programme.
The first proposal concerns the formalisation of a training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry, the so-called "Media-Training" programme, which will be funded to the value of EUR 50 million for the period 2001 to 2005.
The objective of the second proposal is to establish a programme of support for the development, distribution and promotion of unequivocally European audiovisual works.
This is the MEDIA-PLUS programme - Development, Distribution and Promotion, which will be funded to the value of EUR 350 million for the period 2001 to 2005.
Following the Helsinki European Council meeting, on which a debate was held here this morning in plenary sitting, in the presence of the President of the Commission, the Commission approved a proposal for a decision by the Council which seeks the formal adoption of the guidelines on the Member States' employment policies for 2000.
In the framework of the internal reform of the Commission and following its statement of commitment to review the policy of outsourcing services, the Commission also approved a communication containing guidelines and the timetable for the implementation of this outsourcing policy.
Finally, Mr President, the Commission approved a proposal for a decision by the Council that aims to create a European Fund for Refugees.
This is an instrument that aims to last for five years and which, thus, within a framework of multiannual programming, will enable us to give effective support to measures designed to improve conditions of reception, to promote integration and to make voluntary repatriation easier, as well as reintegration into refugees' and displaced persons' countries of origin.
The fund will also contribute to the financing of emergency measures in the event of a massive influx of people who are in desperate need of international protection.
A sum of EUR 36 million has been earmarked for the first year of this fund' s operation: EUR 26 million for the structural policy and EUR 10 million for emergency situations.
On this last point, I would like to add that the tradition of sums being earmarked for supporting refugees was started by the European Parliament in 1997 and annual decisions have been taken on it.
Therefore, the time has come, following the Tampere European Council meeting to adopt a permanent legal base, which will give rise to a multiannual-type programme.
The Tampere European Council asked the Commission to look into the creation of a financial fund aimed at resolving emergency situations.
The Commission worked on the basis of the lessons it learned from its experience of Kosovo.
This fund is therefore both a fund that has an emergency component but whose objective is, at the same time, to guarantee the financing of structural policy measures of support for the reception, integration and voluntary repatriation of refugees and asylum seekers.
There are, therefore, two interlocking budget lines, which nevertheless have different objectives.
Firstly, the structural objective for the next five years is to allow the development by the Member States of policies for the reception and integration of refugees and asylum seekers, policies which must concentrate above all on priority actions of a very tangible nature.
We see the Member States' need to provide themselves with equipment and infrastructure for support for the reception, integration and voluntary repatriation of refugees and asylum seekers as a priority in this area.
The objective of the Commission' s proposal is that the sum of EUR 26 million should be distributed amongst the Member States based on a criterion, on a distribution scale that, above all, takes into account the number of requests for asylum that each Member State has received in the last three years and the number of refugees that have been in each Member States over the last three years.
The first component will make up two-thirds of the fund' s national financing component and the second component will make up one third.
In terms of the management of this fund, the Commission proposes that it should, above all, be co-financed by Member States with the specific aim of committing each State to implementing concrete actions that will lead to improving the situation of asylum-seekers and refugees in the States of our Union.
The Commission is reserving the management of 10% of the funds for itself with the aim of supporting the development of innovative, transnational projects.
In its proposal, the Commission adopts the system of the constant commitology of a consultative committee and aims, with this, to replace the system of the Technical Assistance Offices that was in force during the 1998-1999 period.
I am Mr President, at the Chamber' s service.
Thank you very much, Commissioner António Vitorino.
Firstly, I would like to say that your slight delay is quite justified by the importance of your communication.
I would also like to say that Parliament is delighted that this almost immediate and instantaneous form of debate between this House and the executive is possible and hopes that this new practice will really create a space for topical political debate, which can only enhance this House and its relationship with the Commission.
We shall now proceed to the debate.
Thank you, Mr President.
My question relates to the Media Plus Programme 2001-2006.
The elections for the European Parliament had a turnout, unfortunately, of less than 50%.
This programme should make provision for a focus on information and, more importantly, for a focus on training for journalists on the subject of the European Union.
I think that there is an increasingly urgent need to maintain good contacts with the public.
We have seen from the example of the WTO that European broadcasters could have been represented much more intensively and that it is important for us to be up to date in media reporting if we want to play a leading role in the world.
Which is why I am interested in knowing if it would be possible to invite journalists here from Europe and the rest of the world in order to explain our work to them and show them the advantages of European Union.
Firstly, Mr Rübig, I would like to say that I share the concern you have just expressed about whether the European Institutions as a whole, are able to draft a policy on information and communication which will enable us to provide all European citizens with not just the contents of our debates but also with the added value that the decisions of Parliament, the Commission and the Council itself have for their daily life.
Nevertheless, the context of the Media Plus programme does not apply best to conducting information campaigns or communication aimed at our citizens.
In reality, the central aim of these programmes is to support the training of professionals in the European audiovisual industry and to promote European artistic creation and research in the audiovisual sphere.
They are, therefore, not information programmes in the strict sense of the word, but are rather programmes of support for creative initiatives by audiovisual professionals, which are markedly European in nature.
We are all aware that the percentage of audiovisual products originating in Europe and consumed in Europe is tiny, even if we take the value of the production of each of our national States together as well as those considered to be European productions because they involve the collaboration of more than one Member State.
We hope that through this programme, there will be a significant increase in the worldwide quota of audiovisual products originating in Europe by means of a policy of supporting the creation, production and distribution of authentically European audiovisual products.
My second question relates to employment policy for the year 2000, which you voted on here today.
The same question comes up time and time again: to what extent is the budget of the European Union examined in order to ascertain which budget lines foster employment?
Some expenditure certainly fosters employment by creating new jobs and new undertakings, some budget lines secure existing jobs and some budget lines destroy jobs.
Has any provision been made here for a scientific study or are there any studies which illustrate which expenditure or income we can use to make a positive impact on European employment policy?
I must confess to the honourable Member that employment is not my specific area of expertise. I would therefore not be able to give a straight answer to your question as far as global policy of the Commission is concerned.
What I can guarantee is that the issue of the restructuring of the Union budget concerning contributions to employment policy was not discussed by the Commission today.
What we did approve was the contribution of the Commission to the guidelines for the national employment plans for the year 2000 in the follow-up to the so-called Cardiff, Luxembourg and Cologne procedures.
We consider that a major opportunity to discuss the concrete contribution of the Union to the creation of new jobs in Europe will be provided by the coming Lisbon Summit in March, which will be the time and the place to make an evaluation of the three processes I have just mentioned, Cologne, Luxembourg and Cardiff on one hand; and on the other to define the strategy, the synthesis of macro-economic policies, micro-economic entrepreneurial innovation and the challenge of the new information society.
From the Lisbon Summit I hope we will get a clearer idea as to how the Union budget can contribute to our common objective of creating new jobs in the continent.
Mr President. I do not wish to encroach on members' time, but you reported at the beginning that you are now instituting Treaty infringement proceedings against France.
But the argument does not relate solely to France, it relates to Germany as well.
In the compromise forged between France and the Commission and Great Britain, it was agreed that the tests should also be used for diagnostic purposes and that English beef from this export programme should be labelled.
These requirements were also imposed by Germany.
My question is this: if you institute Treaty infringement proceedings without waiting for the results of the tests, when the tests have not even been carried out - we are still waiting for a proposal from Commissioner Byrne - and if the logistics for labelling have still not been set up, how then can you expect France and Germany to lift their import restrictions with this state of affairs?
Should the Commission not put the conditions in place and monitor them first, so that this can be done? Mr President, we await further explanation from the Commission on the matter tomorrow.
Perhaps then we can go into it in greater depth.
Mr President, I shall be brief.
The issue raised by the honourable Member will be adequately addressed by my colleague, Mr Byrne, tomorrow morning here in Parliament.
I would suggest that he raise the question tomorrow, when he will get a much better answer than any I could give you.
Mr President, since we are holding a free debate, I read Mr Ecevit' s statement following Turkey' s acceptance as a candidate country of the European Union in this morning' s Libération. In it he said, "the borders of Europe will inevitably move more and more eastwards....they will encompass Central Asia and eventually the whole of the Asian continent" .
In his second statement, he brought up the Cyprus issue and stressed that Turkey would not brook any discussion of the current state of affairs in Cyprus, thereby ignoring what was said in the Helsinki decision.
I should like to ask the Commissioner, given that the Commission enthusiastically supported candidate status for Turkey, if these statements are in keeping with the spirit in which the Council and the Commission recommended that Turkey be granted candidate status and if this is an indication of how Turkey will conduct itself in future.
Mr Marinos, just a brief observation.
We all have to adapt to this new and, I think, encouraging method of working with the Commission, - the free debate - but as you know, according to the Rules of Procedure, this free debate is connected directly and in this particular circumstance - and that is why it was created - to the declaration that the Commission has just made and to the issues addressed in it.
Obviously, the Commission has not made a declaration on these matters even though they are, I admit, of the utmost political importance and extremely topical.
However, the Commission has not made such a declaration.
It is up to Commissioner Vitorino to decide if he should reply or not.
Mr President, I would just like to say that I agree with your interpretation.
The Commission' s position on the interpretation of the Helsinki decisions was expressed here, this morning in plenary, by President Prodi and it is to this declaration that I would refer you for the Commission' s position.
I missed the beginning of the sitting, for which I apologise, but I was at a meeting with Xanana Gusmão.
I am extremely curious to find out, as the press has barely covered the matter, how things went in Helsinki in terms of the third pillar, which falls precisely within Commissioner Vitorino' s competence.
At the Tampere meeting, much was said about third pillar issues, about internal security, justice and all the rest, and the Commissioner was supposed to take to Helsinki something that was already tangible.
I would like to know what happened in Helsinki, if he is able to give me an answer.
Mr Soares, the Commission' s commitment was, in December, to present the first version of the scoreboard to the Council of Justice and Home Affairs.
And this is what the Commission did at the beginning of December.
Not to the Helsinki European Council but to the Council of Justice and Home Affairs.
The Commission hopes that this scoreboard will be adopted under the Portuguese Presidency at the Council of Justice and Home Affairs next March in Lisbon.
At European Council level, what was decided was that the Heads of State and Government will once again go into issues of Justice and Home Affairs at the European Council meeting in June 2000, the Santa Maria da Feira Council, in order to study the so-called external dimension of Justice and Home Affairs in greater detail. These are the implications for the European Union' s external policy of the new priorities adopted by Tampere for the area of freedom, security and justice.
Commissioner Vitorino, I appreciated the communication that you just made on behalf of the Commission on the Media II programme for support for the creation and production of European culture.
I simply feel that the funds are too small for the ambition that the Commission has for this programme and for this strategy.
Nevertheless, the intention is good and should be applauded.
I feel however, that the greater consumption of European audiovisual products will occur through educating Europeans themselves, through stimulating their taste and their appreciation of European culture and by rejecting the many poor-quality products that come from other parts of the world.
This educating process is obviously not within the Commission' s competence. It is up to Europeans themselves, in the way they raise and educate their children and in the way they run their media.
Nevertheless, I appreciated your communication and I support it.
What I asked you just now though is this; is this programme positively compatible with the Commission' s other position according to which we should protect European audiovisual products from competition, especially television, which the French call a "cultural exception" ?
Mr President, thank you very much for the question that I have been asked.
I would like to begin by saying to Carlos Lage that what the Commission has approved today - the Media Plus programme - is entirely consistent with a strategy that has been developed by this Commission within the framework of the so-called I-Europe programme. And this will culminate - we hope - in the decisions of next March' s Extraordinary European Council meeting in Lisbon.
What we need to do is to prepare Europe, both in terms of infrastructure and of the content production industry, for the challenge of the information age which means of course that we are assuming that Europe has the ambition to participate in the new digital economy and in the new society of culture and information on a global scale.
As for the specific question that Mr Lage asked, we are not trying to establish a strategy based on the logic of protecting competition.
It is a question of establishing a strategy with which, whilst accepting the rules of free competition, we can support European creation as well as distribution in order to be able to face this competition more successfully.
Therefore, it is not a question of there being less competition, but of fairer competition which is given greater support by the European courts.
Mr President, during Commissioner Vitorino' s hearing, I told him that I was pleased to see that he was the only Commissioner who had taken the trouble to mention education as an important element to be incorporated into the third pillar.
He replied enthusiastically and even with a degree of passion which struck me as extraordinary.
In Spain we are adopting a law on aliens which fully supports integration and the recognition of all rights.
But we also need Europe to take a step forward with regard to education because a new wave of illiteracy is appearing, a new group of marginalised people, as a result of the fact that people are unable to understand the language of the country into which they are being integrated.
These new illiterates cannot even understand safety instructions at work.
They cannot understand road signs.
This is a new type of illiteracy, a new kind of basic poverty which is currently becoming part of the social make-up of Europe.
This problem is getting out of hand, perhaps through lack of information and research.
Would it not be possible to carry out a systematic study of what the conditions and needs really are and where the essential points lie? Because without information it is not possible to draft a policy and without a knowledge of the true state of affairs it is not possible to create proper programmes.
We need to lay firm foundations in this field, since nobody is taking responsibility for education.
I shall gladly reply to the Member by saying that education is a central element in integration policies, and I offer you two examples.
First example: the Commission has proposed a directive for the reuniting of legal immigrants with their families in the Member States of the Union.
Under this directive, children who are reunited with a relative who is a permanent legal immigrant in the countries of the Union will have the right to full education under the same terms as the children of the citizens of the Member States.
Second example: under the EQUAL initiative, research is to be carried out into the use of the education system as a means of integrating immigrants into the host societies.
I can guarantee that both the Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs and the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs are fully aware that it is strategically important for the children of legal immigrants in the countries of the Union to be guaranteed access to education.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
Question Time (Commission)
The next item is Question Time (B5-0036/1999). We shall examine the questions to the Commission.
First Part
Since the author is not present, Question No 33 lapses.
Question No 34 by (H-0689/99):
Subject: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights In the Commission=s view, should the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights being drawn up on a mandate from the Tampere Summit have legal force?
The Cologne European Council decided that a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should be drawn up in advance of the European Council in December 2000 and that such a charter should be drafted by a body composed of 15 representatives of the Heads of State and Government, 16 Members of the European Parliament including the honourable Member, 30 Members of national parliaments and myself representing the President of the Commission.
The composition of the body was fixed in Tampere and its first meeting will take place next Friday, 17 December.
The nature of the Charter is a very fundamental question, nevertheless the European Council left the question open.
According to the conclusions, it will have to be considered whether and, if so, how the charter should be integrated into the Treaties.
Although it is up to the Heads of State and Government to decide the definitive status of the Charter, in its proposal the body will have to consider how to combine two open questions: a legally binding text ready to be inserted into the Treaty, or a solemn political declaration.
These reflections will also take into account the close connection with the IGC preparatory work.
In the Commission's view, the European Union Charter should respond to two different concerns: visibility and security.
As far as visibility is concerned, one could argue that a political declaration solemnly proclaimed by the European institutions and relayed by all channels of communication will be enough.
On the legal security aspect, we must consider how the European Union Charter can contribute to improving the degree of protection of fundamental rights within the European Union and it is difficult to see how a non-binding text could contribute to clarifying and transcending the current system of protection.
In the Commission's view, the Charter to be presented to the Heads of State and Government must carry real added value and the best way to achieve this is to focus on the fundamental rights arising from the Union itself.
The body will have to find a way to attain a politically significant text compatible with insertion into the Treaty.
There are clear indications that drafting of the Charter is broadly welcomed and that citizens expect it to be a founding text on the matter.
The Commission is convinced that those expectations should not be disappointed.
The Commissioner has surprised me by going as far as he has done and I very much welcome the response that he has given.
I look forward to working with him on the drafting body.
I wonder whether you would agree that if, at the end of the day, we end up with a mere political statement, we will have wasted a year of our activity?
It is not necessary to have 62 people working to draft a political statement.
If this is what we are going to end up with we might as well send away a couple of officials to make a draft of the rights that we currently have in the Treaty.
What we must have at the end of this process is a legally binding set of rights for the citizens of Europe.
I would just add that I am confident we will be able to find the necessary consensus to make the charter capable of having a real influence on the daily lives of our citizens.
There are of course difficulties ahead of us - political difficulties and some technical ones.
We have to address very clearly the question of the judicial enforcement of this charter.
I am confident that in close cooperation the Commission, the Council, Parliament and the national parliaments will eventually come up with a good result if we bear in mind above all the interests of the citizens.
Question No 35 by (H-0670/99):
Subject: Renewal of concessions for motorway companies in Italy The Italian government intends to renew the concessions of the 20 companies which currently manage the Italian motorways.
After approving the concession for Autostrade, a stock company which manages approximately 50% of the Italian motorway system, it is proposing to renew the concessions of the 19 other, smaller companies.
In exchange, the companies propose making enormous investments worth some ITL 20,000 billion in new motorways.
Does the Commission not feel that renewing the concessions is an infringement of the directives on the awarding of public supply contracts (92/50/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 89/440/EEC), given that there was no public European call for tenders and any other EU company was therefore excluded from this important market? Does the Commission not think that the companies' offer to create new infrastructure is a means of defending their monopoly position, and that the construction work runs counter to the EU' s policy of a more responsible balance between the different forms of transport?
In response to the question raised by Mr Bouwman, I would like to make the following observation on behalf of the Commission.
The Commission would point out to the honourable Member of Parliament that there are three infringement procedures currently running concerning these issues.
The procedure concerning Autostrade s.p.a. could well have a positive outcome in the light of the fact that the Italian authorities have expressed their willingness to work together with the Commission in unison and have taken steps towards privatising the company.
Given the major consequences which this case might have, the Commission will, however, continue to monitor the process and the dossier will not be closed before the Commission has ascertained that the principles of transparency and equal treatment are upheld.
With regard to the other concessions, the Commission has initiated two infringement procedures and is investigating the issues related to them.
Given their economic, political and social significance, these matters will also be discussed at a meeting with the Italian authorities which will take place very soon.
In order to tackle this general issue in a more structural way, the Commission has, in fact, recently launched a horizontal inquiry into the current situation within all Member States, to identify common problems and problems which are only specific to a certain Member State.
If this inquiry will bring possible infringements to light, then the Commission will take further steps to solve these problems.
The new investments in infrastructure undertaken by Italy do not necessarily contravene the EU' s transport policy.
Although the Member States are responsible for taking decisions regarding such investments, the Commission is of the opinion that these must be based on the positive outcome of a complete social cost and benefit analysis.
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, I am of course delighted that the Commission is looking into these problems and that these three infringement proceedings are now under way.
We are all waiting for an answer.
But I would ask you to consider in this connection that we should perhaps take this opportunity to provide for dovetailing the Commission services responsible for transport and the services responsible for competition if we are to make progress with transport policy decisions in Europe in general.
We must and we want to shift heavy traffic onto the railways.
The positive example here of the award of the Brenner motorway concession for the purpose of investing in a basic Brenner tunnel could perhaps be used as an example throughout Europe.
I would like to digress briefly to point out that the Brenner motorway concession is to be awarded, but has not yet been awarded on condition or with the promise that money from the motorway will be transferred to the basic Brenner tunnel, i.e. to the railways.
If the Commission services responsible for transport and competition were to work together, we could take an important step forward in a policy to shift heavy traffic from the roads to the railways.
I would like to extend my warm thanks to Mr Messner for the additional remarks he has made which the Commission will take very much to heart.
I do not only say this on my own behalf, but also certainly on behalf of fellow Commissioner Loyola de Palacio, who, as you know, is responsible for the transport policy.
This matter undoubtedly has our undivided attention.
I would very much like to respond to Mr Messner' s question and reiterate that the onus is on the Member State to adopt its own transport policy.
Naturally, we hope that, as far as possible, this policy will be in line with the transport policy of other Member States and that of the Commission itself.
As for the shift of freight from road to rail, I would like to observe that the point made by Mr Messner deserves a great deal of attention.
I can assure him that in various Member States, an opinion-forming process is under way which aims to ensure that the shift which he advocates is carried out.
It is, of course, a fact that the transport of freight by road carries an element of flexibility which rail does not have.
This does not take away from the fact that rail transport is eminently suitable for long-distance transport, also because - and this will be very dear to Mr Messner - the surroundings and the environment suffer less damage as a result.
Concerning the concession regarding transport over the Brenner Pass, as mentioned by Mr Messner, this concession is still outstanding.
The Commission will find out how this concession will be granted because - and this is also the topic of current discussion - of course, concessions cannot be granted until the conditions which should be tied in with the granting of concessions in general, are sufficiently met.
Mr President, Commissioner, in the final analysis, concessions are being used more and more as a way of financing urgently needed projects.
When do you expect to complete a directive on road pricing in Europe which could be used to carry out urgently needed motorway renovations and extensions? I think that, in the final analysis, road pricing might also reduce mobility costs, if the objectives are achieved, namely fewer traffic jams, fewer accidents, and above all, more environmental protection, not only in relation to air pollution and noise but in many other areas too.
Do you think that this sort of directive will be tabled in the foreseeable future?
With regard to this additional question, I would like to remark that the topic of road pricing is a very contentious one in certain Member States.
One could, of course, reason from the liberal principle that anything scarce should become expensive.
In this case, it is road space which is scarce so one could say that this scarceness must be translated into higher prices.
The total cost remains the same, of course.
The total cost is what it is.
But there is a shift from public funding of these expenses towards the private user of this road space.
I can assure the honourable MEP that, for example, in a Member State which I happen to know best, the topic of road pricing should receive a great deal of attention but is politically also very controversial.
In other words, the topic is definitely on the agenda but has not yet reached the stage where decisions can be taken and as far as I know - but the honourable MEP is aware that this is not within my remit, so I am speaking with some circumlocution and caution - such a directive is not in the pipeline at the European Commission as yet.
However, if I am mistaken, then I give the undertaking that further news will follow in writing.
As the author is not present, Question No 36 lapses.
As the honourable Member who has put down the question will know, political cooperation between Member States on quality in education has strengthened during recent years.
The recommendation on quality evaluation and higher education adopted in September 1998 and a proposed recommendation on quality evaluation in school education give evidence of the importance of discussing quality of education at a European level.
At the Council of Education Ministers on 26 November, the theme gained further importance as one of the priorities to be treated during the next years through the adoption of a resolution on a rolling agenda.
Following the Conference of European Ministers of Education in Prague in June 1998, a working committee on quality indicators was set up.
It includes representatives from 26 European countries and it has prepared progress reports for the attention of Ministers - one in June and one in October of this year.
The first European report on quality of education will be presented for the education council for the Conference of European Ministers of Education in Bucharest in June 2000, and for this Parliament.
In the light of the discussions on the report, the Commission will propose how to treat indicators and benchmarks of quality of education within the framework of the rolling agenda and the yearly Conference of European Ministers of Education.
The present working committee has proved to be an important forum for discussion and for exchange of information and experiences about quality policies between Member States and acceding countries.
The Commission intends to propose that the committee continue its work.
The European work on indicators and benchmarks will lead to discussions about reasons for differences in performance between education systems.
Explanatory factors like the curriculum, teacher-training, resources, evaluation and so on are discussed within the working committee on quality indicators and at a ministerial level.
Countries participating in the working committee profit from the exchange of information and experiences on these issues.
The Commission welcomes the active participation of the European Parliament on the issue of quality of education, particularly in the forthcoming discussion on indicators and benchmarks of quality education.
I am grateful for the courtesy of your reply, Commissioner, but I have to say that it does not fully respond to the very specific questions which I have put to you.
I believe that the legal basis of Article 149 provides us with the opportunity to move forward a little more than the cautious Prague mandate.
The concept of quality in education is more than a quantitative measure of the resources of the different systems or an evaluation of performance in certain academic disciplines.
To my mind, the agenda of the Council of Education Ministers of 26 November could have made use of the proposal of a permanent committee on quality in education.
In the light of the results of the first European report on quality in education, which this Parliament will take good note of, would it be possible for this committee or some other form of committee to provide common benchmarks in the area of the curriculum?
I urge the Commission to face this challenge with political courage.
We must go beyond the Prague mandate.
We must go beyond the old debate between uniformity and national idiosyncrasies.
The debate on quality in education must help us to duly open up European consciousness to the younger generations.
The Commission agrees with the honourable Member that women are still under-represented at the higher levels of management in the Commission as well, indeed, as in other institutions.
However I have to say with the very greatest respect to the honourable Lady that it is not accurate to say that women are excluded from those posts, nor is it accurate to attribute chauvinist motives to the Commission.
Since 1988, the Commission has adopted three action programmes with the aim of promoting positive actions and equal opportunities for women within its services.
Special attention has been attached to increasing the proportion of women in management and in middle-management posts.
In 1996 an evaluation of the impact of the two positive action programmes on achieving equal opportunities in the Commission revealed that there had been significant changes in the situation of female staff in Category A and in management posts, particularly as a result of the annual targets adopted by the Commission.
While women accounted for 11.5% of Category A staff in 1992, they represented 19.3% of staff in that category in September of this year.
Women occupied approximately 2% of A2, that is to say director, posts in 1992. That rose to 11% by September of this year.
The third action programme for equal opportunities for women and men at the Commission, 1997-2000, should consolidate what has already been achieved and go further along the same lines.
Whilst noting these advances I emphasise very strongly that the Commission is not complacent.
On 29 September, the new Commission expressed its commitment to taking further positive action to ensure that a higher number of women obtain posts in senior management positions.
Specific proposals will consequently be made in the course of the forthcoming reform strategy.
Meanwhile the honourable Member will be interested to know that last Wednesday the Commission adopted a policy proposal which I put forward on merit, equal opportunities and geographical balance.
That policy includes positive action to be taken to improve the career prospects of women civil servants.
The college resolved that when there are male and female candidates for senior posts the woman candidate will be given preference.
In addition, the Commission will strive to double the proportion of senior posts taken by women by the end of this mandate.
In short, progress is being made.
My colleagues and I would like it to be faster and broader. We are working on that.
We hope that other institutions - maybe including this one - will take a similar course, especially so far as senior management positions are concerned.
I am grateful to Commissioner Kinnock for this reply and the positive attitude which underlies it and also - I am sure - the work which he is carrying out.
Nevertheless, Commissioner, I have to point out that in this area of making women' s representation the norm, the Commission has had a hypocritical attitude for more than twenty years.
Its attitude has been a hypocritical "I would like to, but I cannot" , and this hypocritical impotency sends a very damaging signal to the world as a whole.
My question did not talk of exclusion, as you know very well; it talked of the fact that the number of women in high positions stands at barely 10%.
The figures which you have offered - emphatically - here in the plenum of the European Parliament, are ridiculous and shameful.
An institution such as the European Commission, which has for years claimed to be in favour of women also at the highest levels of administration, cannot be satisfied with that exclusion which the figures demonstrate.
And the photographs of the European Councils are a horrific illustration of the sexism of European decision making.
Question No 40 by (H-0683/99):
Subject: Bridges across the Danube in former Yugoslavia As well as military installations, numerous civil targets were damaged or even destroyed during NATO's bombing raids in Kosovo and/or Serbia, including the bridges across the Danube, the collapsed sections of which are still obstructing navigation on the Danube and thus significantly hampering economic reconstruction.
It is likely that, in the coming winter, the collapsed concrete sections will cause further problems, as they are still resting on the river bed, and many experts fear they could cause accumulations of ice which they have prevented from flowing downstream.
The logical consequence would be for the barriers of ice to cause the level of the Danube to rise considerably, which could cause severe flooding, which in turn would increase reconstruction costs, and this cannot be in the Commission's interests.
Is the Commission aware of this situation and has it already come up with proposals or promised financial assistance to help resolve this specific problem?
I would like to put on record my gratitude to Mr Balfe for his courtesy.
The Commission is aware of the important economic implications of the destruction of the bridges over the Danube for the riparian countries.
It affects not just the bilateral economic relations between Serbia and neighbouring countries, but also other countries along the river, which have traditionally used it as a navigation route between the Rhine and the Black Sea.
Concerns have also been expressed regarding the potential for flooding upstream.
These concerns were recognised by the General Affairs Council at its meeting on 15 November.
The honourable Member is no doubt aware that the authorities in Belgrade are attempting to put pressure on the international community to lift the sanctions against the FRY and rebuild the destroyed bridges by making the re-opening of the Serbian sections of the Danube to navigation conditional upon assistance from the international community to rebuild the bridges.
This is unacceptable.
With the Danube Commission, the Commission is examining the possibilities for clearing the Danube.
We want to be able to help, difficult as the task may be, but we are determined to prevent any clearance of the Danube from being manipulated by the FRY authorities into support for Mr Milosevic.
Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future.
We are discussing reconstruction in this area.
We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on?
On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?
. As the honourable Member will know, there are a number of projects in the Stability Pact which have been identified for substantial investment in the next few years.
The honourable Member is perfectly correct to say that infrastructure - both repairing damaged infrastructure and providing new infrastructure - is going to be crucial to the economic regeneration of the region.
But I should add this: however much one invests in the infrastructure - and we will be looking at specific pledges at the donors' conference early in the new year - however much one spends on infrastructure, what is crucial is to encourage greater and freer trade between the countries of the region, and even in one or two countries within the countries of the region.
So I totally endorse the honourable Member's reference to the importance of infrastructure investment; but I think encouraging more sensible trading relationships between those countries is also absolutely crucial.
Mr President, from what I can gather from the first part of the Commissioner' s answer, the Commission is totally indifferent to the negative impact the damaged bridges over the Danube will have and is only concerned about how it can make use of this natural disaster - which it in fact helped to bring about - to overturn the legally and democratically elected leadership in Yugoslavia.
This does not create a very good impression.
It is in keeping with the more general policy which the European Union has pursued on this issue.
I would like to hear the Commissioner' s views on this or perhaps some statement to the contrary if I have misunderstood what he said.
I will try to make myself a little clearer to the honourable Member.
We want to make the Danube navigable again by clearing the rubble from the damaged bridges, from the river and the riverbed.
If we are not able to do that then there will be real problems, including flooding of surrounding areas, so we look forward to receiving a proposal from the Danube Commission on which we hope to be able to act as rapidly as possible.
I also hope that, in due course, we can provide reconstruction assistance in Serbia and not just for bridges but for other projects as well.
That will depend on free and fair elections in Serbia and, I hope, on the departure of Mr Milosevic.
It is Mr Milosevic whose policies and presence prevent investment in his country, not those who are declining to invest while he is there.
There is an easy way of helping Serbia back into the mainstream of decent life and economic success and that is to get rid of Mr Milosevic.
Question No 41 by (H-0704/99):
Subject: Action by the EU against illegal trafficking in nuclear, biological and chemical materials Despite serious evidence of illegal trafficking in nuclear chemical and biological (NCB) weapons-grade materials, no serious steps are being taken to combat the problem. At the same time multilateral deliberations on this matter and agreements on the monitoring of NBC materials are proving inadequate.
According to many rumours and reports, these networks are situated mainly in the Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Russia and the illegal trading activities are centred mainly in Constantinople and Budapest, while much of the trafficking is carried out through channels in the Balkans many of which go through Kosovo. What view does the Commission take of this major problem and what is its attitude towards those countries within whose territory this dangerous and illegal trafficking is taking place, particularly where there is evidence of a cover-up and especially in view of the fact that some of the countries involved are seeking EU membership or association?
. The Commission does not accept the statement that no substantial initiatives are being taken to tackle the problems of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons smuggling.
A good deal has in fact been done.
But the Commission's legal powers have been limited to civilian aspects of nuclear accounting and control under the Euratom Treaty.
This means that the Commission does not have any mandate to deal with the accounting and control of weapons of mass destruction per se.
It is only under the evolving CFSP that Member States are considering expanding EU action to include some initiatives to reduce stocks of weapons of mass destruction.
Member States and the Commission are currently discussing a joint action due for adoption before the end of this year to implement the security and non-proliferation aspects of the common strategy on Russia.
In this joint action, which includes concrete action to destroy stocks of chemical weapons, the Commission has been asked to coordinate European Union action.
We stand ready to take this important additional task on board in consultation with the Member States and Mr Solana and working closely, we hope, with the Russian authorities.
The Commission is heavily engaged in efforts to combat smuggling of nuclear material and radioactive substances.
The Commission initiated a series of special actions to support national authorities involved in combating illicit nuclear traffic from both EU Member States and candidate States, including seminars, training programmes and technical assistance.
The Euratom safeguards office in Luxembourg, in addition to its specific control tasks on the territory of the European Union, has undertaken a series of related outreach activities since 1992.
There is close coordination under the auspices of the G8 and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Preventative actions in the form of cooperation programmes have been carried out since 1992 with central and east European countries, including Russia. There are areas such as training and strengthening national nuclear material accounting and control systems.
As regards our cooperation with EU candidate countries, cooperation with customs, border control and police institutions is well established under the PHARE horizontal programme on justice and home affairs.
These measures help to reduce the dangers stemming from uncontrolled nuclear weapons material.
However, the Commission recognises the formidable and rapidly-evolving challenge in this field and hopes to be able to address the issue more comprehensively once we have been given the appropriate legal mandates.
Mr President, I used the term trafficking even though it is not quite the right word because there is no trafficking without trade and I do not think that there is any trade in these materials, they are raw materials which go where they can.
However, we all know that, unfortunately, the silk routes were followed by the oil route, then the cocaine route and then the heroin route and now, unfortunately, we are witnessing the emergence of a trafficking route for these materials which are a serious threat to the peace and security of all citizens.
In this sense, and because it seems that these trafficking routes run through countries which have applied for membership of the European Union, the issue has now become a political one and one which merits particular attention.
In this sense, apart from protecting expert scientists with the relevant know-how who must not be led astray due to their specialist knowledge or financial weakness, it is a sine qua non that we adopt a rationale for setting political conditions for applicant countries as to what should or should not happen in their territories.
This has nothing to do with new forms of terrorism, as some people are saying, but rather with new forms of threats and new forms of peace and security for all citizens.
This is a pressing political issue which should be a multinational priority and not just the priority of a few policing mechanisms which may operate within a different culture and which do not understand the new dangers from which Europe must protect its citizens.
I would request that Members wait for me to give them the floor, since this ritual allows the President to direct the debate and also allows the Commissioner to hear the beginning of the question through the interpreter.
This is the second purpose.
.
I totally recognise the importance of the issues which the honourable Member has raised. They are a matter of considerable concern to the Commission and of course they will be issues that we have to pursue vigorously during the enlargement negotiations.
Perhaps, I can just add a couple of points to the rather extensive - perhaps too extensive - answer I gave to the honourable Member's question.
First of all, it is absolutely imperative that there should be the closest possible coordination under the auspices of the G8 and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It is absolutely crucial that we should work together in this very important area.
Secondly, given that the honourable Member referred in particular to candidate countries, I referred of course to what can be done under the PHARE horizontal programme.
I would like to refer to one particular scheme which promises well.
That is twinning partnerships between European Union Member States and respective national institutions. They represent a valuable way forward.
They too can be backed by PHARE and they should be part of the programme of action we pursue in order to deal with what is, as the honourable Member said, a very serious problem indeed.
For several years Colombia, as the House will know, has been plagued by civil war, by kidnappings, by violence and by drug trafficking which have seriously undermined the rule of law.
I am deeply concerned, as I am sure all honourable Members will be, about the recent murders including that of a young Spaniard who was working on a European Commission-financed project.
He was killed, together with a priest, apparently by a group of paramilitaries.
The Commission has urged the Colombian authorities to carry out urgent investigations into the circumstances of this crime.
President Pastrana is currently engaged in the struggle to find a negotiated settlement to a conflict which, as the honourable Member underlines, is extremely complex.
The Colombian Government is currently working on the details of Plan Colombia.
Colombia will continue to need strong backing from the international community.
The specific areas where Colombia would like support, including financial support from the European Union and others, still need to be agreed more precisely.
The Commission has already indicated its willingness to support a peace process in Colombia within the framework of Plan Colombia, as it has done in several countries in Central America in recent years.
The Commission would of course take all necessary steps before delivering Community aid to ensure that all parties respect their commitments.
At present, the Commission is focusing on aid for internally displaced persons, on average between EUR 7 million and EUR 8 million per annum, and financially supports a series of initiatives intended to promote human rights in the country.
The Commission covers the bulk of the costs of running the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Colombia and has just approved a multiannual programme to support human rights in the Andean region with funding of approximately EUR 11.5 million, the bulk of which will be dedicated to Colombia.
Commissioner, thank you for your reply.
I also very much appreciate your statement on funding a plan to support Colombia, provided that the commitments that were made are met.
Unfortunately, according to Human Rights Watch, some high-level military representatives, who are recognisable, whose names are known and who are responsible for military training and have been involved in various massacres, have still not been removed from their posts, while the terrible collusion between the military and paramilitary groups continues.
I therefore think what Commissioner Patten said is important: these things must not be allowed to go unpunished and they must not be shrouded in silence.
I am also very pleased to learn - and I confess my lack of knowledge on the subject - that there are plans, even important ones, regarding evacuees, humanitarian aid and committees on human rights.
I wonder whether, in view of the peace talks, the Commission can massively increase the aid given to social movements in Colombia and to associations for human rights.
. As the honourable Member well knows, Colombia is a country in the middle of an exceptionally damaging civil war.
I am not sure that the government has very much control over more than about half of its territory and I am not sure how much influence it has on the warring parties or on the human rights violations committed by them.
Our aid goes primarily to the people who are themselves the victims of human rights violations, or refugees who have had to flee from their homes and from their land.
It is precisely these people who most need our support and precisely these people whom we are trying to support the most.
President Pastrana was in Europe a few weeks ago.
I think I am right in saying he gave a speech in this Parliament about Plan Colombia and I enjoyed my conversations with him during that visit.
He indicated that he will be putting forward concrete proposals next February for how the European Union could support Plan Colombia.
When we receive those proposals I will be happy to discuss them with Parliament and to do so in the context of Parliament's understandable concern about some of the reports of human rights violations which alas continue and continue to be reported by reputable organisations such as the one the honourable Member referred to.
We will continue to take the most serious account of human rights violations. We will do what we can to help those who have had their human rights abused.
I want to refer once again to those who have suffered or even been killed in trying to implement our own European programmes in Colombia.
We are naturally grateful for the information which Mr Patten is giving us.
It is true that there is an office for the defence of human rights in Colombia.
For several years Parliament asked for it, and finally the Commission, together with the United Nations, finances this human rights office in Colombia.
However, those of us who have been here for years know what the words "displaced" (800 000) and "murdered" mean in relation to Colombia.
As well as the Spaniard Egiluz and the Colombian priest Mazo, two journalists have been murdered in recent days.
150 journalists have been murdered in the last ten years.
In many cases, it is perfectly clear that it is the paramilitary groups who are carrying out these murders.
We know that this is a difficult and complex matter, but, Commissioner, I would like to ask you two questions.
Firstly, do you not think that, as well as talking and maintaining dialogue - which in my opinion should always be done -, we should put pressure on the Colombian Government so that, once and for all, it will try to get rid of the paramilitary groups responsible for these acts?
And secondly, is there any truth in the rumours that, in the name of the fight against drug trafficking, the United States may be planning an intervention strategy in Colombia?
And I believe that the European Union should act decisively in that event, because such an intervention would lead to a spiral of violence which none of us want to see.
On the last point that the honourable Member mentioned, we have in fact taken a number of actions to try to help the Colombian Government deal with the very serious drugs problem, including trade preferences, and we will continue to do so.
On the first point that she mentioned, I do not think that the Colombian Government would disagree with the importance of dealing with the paramilitaries.
It is its capacity to deal with them militarily which has been one of the problems over the years.
I very much hope that the present negotiations will deliver to the people of Colombia the peace which they deserve.
In the meantime, what worries me, and I think worries the honourable Member, is the very serious security situation for human rights activists in Colombia.
They have to be extraordinarily brave to do the important work that they do.
There is a limit to the amount we can do ourselves to increase their personal security though we continue to press our concern about that matter on the Colombian authorities.
We will go on doing so. We also try to monitor the situation very closely with the Member States' embassies in Bogotá.
So we do our best, but it does remain a subject to me of very great concern that so many people, young people for instance, are having to put their lives at risk to try to secure human rights in their country.
Question No 43 by (H-0755/99):
Subject: Stabilisation of Macedonia What steps does the Commission plan to take in 2000 with a view to ensuring the economic and political stabilisation of Macedonia, which has a multiethnic and democratic government, and what is its view of developments in 1999?
Questions to Mr Monti
First, let me sum up what we have done this year.
The European Community has demonstrated its strong commitment to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
In purely financial terms, in addition to technical assistance under PHARE - EUR 22 million - and the financial protocol, an interest subsidy for EIB loans representing EUR 20 million, we have devoted EUR 143 million of exceptional assistance to help the country to cope with the consequences of the Kosovo crisis.
Just as important, FYROM is the first country to become actively involved in the European Union's stabilisation and association process.
The Council should adopt the negotiating mandate for a stabilisation and association agreement in January.
The year 2000, therefore, augurs well for a substantial increase in cooperation between the European Union and FYROM.
It will be a year of negotiation and, we hope, a year which will culminate in the signature of an agreement.
At the same time, the Commission will continue to accompany the political and economic reform process in this country under the existing cooperation agreement and through the PHARE programme or through the new financial instrument that will replace PHARE.
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your positive and specific answer.
Macedonia was the victim first of the Communists and their successors, then it was the victim of two different boycotts and then it was the victim of the war in Kosovo.
It now has a highly multicultural government which is making a conscious effort to forge links with the Albanian sector of the population.
But it needs economic success, otherwise nationalism will break out there again.
Hence my question: first, do you believe that you personally could visit Macedonia in the foreseeable future and, secondly, do you believe, although you have already almost said as much, that an association agreement could be signed by next year?
First of all, I have already threatened the Foreign Minister of FYROM with a visit. He seemed to welcome that prospect.
So I am looking forward to going in the early months of next year.
I have also said that when I go I want to be in a position to open a European Union office in FYROM, because we need a more substantial full-time presence there than we have at present.
I very much hope that we will be able to launch the negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement in earnest next year.
The sooner we can complete those negotiations with FYROM the better; the sooner we can then proceed to ratify the agreement with the Member States.
FYROM is just the first country with which, as the honourable Member knows, we are seeking to negotiate an agreement.
I very much hope that not long after we have begun these negotiations we will be able to move to negotiations with other countries, perhaps first of all, Albania.
But I believe we still have more progress to make there.
Earlier on today we were debating the budget for next year and the difficulty of the European Union finding sufficient finance to fund the operation in Kosovo.
I therefore ask the Commission if it has done any analysis on what the cost would be if there was to be instability in Macedonia; and to what extent - to take him up on his last point - it is true that we need to ensure there is stability in Albania in order to maintain stability in FYROM.
What we should have learnt from the fairly grim experiences of the last few years in the Balkans is that it is much better to prevent instability by early political and economic action than to have to pay later on for the costs of instability knocking on into disaster, not just in one country but in several countries.
That is the story of the last few years.
We talk a good deal about conflict prevention and crisis management.
If we want a very good indication of what would have been the benefits of conflict prevention, again we should look at the Balkans.
I have no doubt at all that instability in Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro would have consequences for the whole region.
I therefore want to see us in a position proactively to support capacity-building, to support economic and social development that, we hope, will prevent that instability.
At the risk of being suspected of reverting provocatively to earlier discussions in Parliament, I very much hope that the important programmes that we are trying to launch in the Balkans will not be held hostage as Parliament and the Council argue and disagree about funding for next year.
I can understand what the constitutional arguments are, what the political arguments are; but try explaining them to somebody without a roof over their head in Kosovo; try explaining them to a pensioner who wants to receive welfare benefit in Montenegro; try explaining them to somebody in FYROM who thinks that the difficult steps that have been taken in that country in the last few years deserve rather more support from the European Union.
I understand that these political arguments rage.
I am sure they are way above the head of a mere Commissioner for External Relations; but I hope I do not find myself next year having to explain these complex constitutional issues to people on the ground in the Balkans or elsewhere in the world who are not getting the support they deserve.
We are grateful to Mr Patten for dedicating his time to this Parliament this afternoon.
Since the time allocated to Questions to Mr Patten has elapsed, Question Nos 44 to 47 will be replied to in writing.
Question No 48 by (H-0677/99):
Subject: Gaming houses The Court of Justice has ruled that the organisation of games of chance is an economic activity constituting the provision of services and falling within the scope of the EC Treaty and that the measures adopted by a Member State with regard to the award of licences to open gaming houses must be proportionate and non-discriminatory (Case C275/92, Schindler). The Italian Government requires proof of effectiveness as a tourist attraction and of the sound financial standing of applicants.
It does not however define those criteria, which leads to arbitrary decision making in many cases. Up to now only four casinos have opened as the result of all the licences granted in Italy (in the United Kingdom there are 119 casinos and in Germany approximately 102).
All the casinos are located in Northern Italy.
This clearly leads to discrimination against the regions coming within Objective 1. In terms of tourist revenue and economic expansion, those regions could benefit greatly from the opening of gaming houses.
Does the Commission believe that the conduct of the Italian Government amounts to an infringement of the Community rules against discrimination and on free competition, having regard in particular to Articles 12 and 86 of the Treaty?
The Commission considers that the position of the Court of Justice is clear as far as the special rights in the games of chance sector are concerned.
The Court recently confirmed that, even if a Member State authorises games of chance, it still has the power to impose limits on the availability of these games and this is in consideration of public interest objectives, such as controlling the desire to play games of chance, the prevention of fraud or crimes occurring and using the profits thus obtained in the public interest.
Each Member State has the power to determine the extent of protection in its territory as regards games of chance.
The Commission is therefore unable to object to the fact that currently in Italy, only four gaming houses have been authorised and that they are located in Northern Italy, since there is nothing that leads us to believe that foreign businesses are being discriminated against, with regard to national businesses.
Commissioner, I believe that this issue holds particular importance within the Member State because the Italian Government' s attitude is not fair but clearly discriminatory.
Recently, the Italian Government denied the request made by a clearly tourist-oriented local authority, Taormina, to establish a gaming house and, at the same time, it authorised Venice casino to open a branch in Mestre.
According to the Commission, does all of this not constitute clear discrimination within a Member State, and moreover, does it not force the inhabitants who would like to play in central and southern regions to go to other Member States - there are hundreds of gaming houses in Europe - rather than staying and playing in Northern Italy, which does not hold great appeal?
Mr Musumeci, I can only repeat the context I have just outlined.
In fact, the situation of gaming houses is different in the various Member States.
We have seen that the Court has confirmed the Member States' power to decide in this field, and I must add, as regards the point you stressed on the distribution within a State' s territory, that competition rules and the principle of non-discrimination do not require Member States to take into account regional considerations when awarding licenses for gaming houses or other permits for the organisation of games of chance.
Competition rules do not raise objections to the criteria that a Member State may use and therefore based on those rules, we cannot consider the decision a Member State makes on the distribution in their territory to be arbitrary, and consequently, a violation of these rules.
Despite the mysterious quantities, your question was very clear.
I think I have understood what Mr Beysen' s question is.
The Commission is aware that breweries often provide café owners with financial, material and technical support.
Nevertheless, the Commission does not share the fear, voiced by Mr Beysen, that the proposed new policy on vertical restrictions could harm Belgian breweries or the hotels, restaurants and cafés sectors.
On the contrary, effective competition will guarantee consumers good service in terms of numbers of bars and the variety of beers they offer.
Firstly, the proposed exemption per category of agreements exempts contracts on the supply of beer that contain a clause prohibiting competition, entered into between brewers who have a market share lower than 30% and owners of bar or commercial concerns.
For Belgian breweries, this means that they will all, with the exception of Interbrew, be able to continue to operate on the basis of the current distribution agreements.
Moreover, the proposed exemption per generalised category allows these breweries greater contractual freedom compared with their freedom on the basis of the current specific exemption in the sector.
Secondly, the proposed exemption per category does not presuppose that non-competition agreements, entered into with a brewery with a market share greater than 30%, are illegal.
A brewery that reaches this market share can notify the Commission of its network of non-competition agreements.
The Commission will then, firstly, evaluate the actual impact of the competition agreements; if the impact is considerable, the Commission can in any case take into account the economic benefits of these non-competition agreements in its evaluation of the possible applicability of an individual exemption under Article 81(3) to the agreements.
Thirdly, if an individual exemption is not applicable to the agreements, the Commission will examine the possible solutions within the existing distribution system.
In other words, the Commission will attempt, as a matter of principle, to resolve any competition issues that might occur, firstly by amending the existing agreements, taking into account the economic benefits they bring.
Mr Beysen will certainly agree that because of its role as the European authority on competition, the Commission must assess very carefully the agreements entered into between operators who benefit from considerable market force.
Indeed, because of their possible effects of closing the market, these agreements can jeopardise competition, not only with regard to producers in other Member States, but also with regard to small Belgian breweries.
This is another reason why the Commission recently launched proceedings against Interbrew.
In conclusion, Mr President, the Commission does not believe that the new policy on vertical restrictions is liable to bring about major structural changes, in the beer, hotels, restaurants and cafés sectors in Belgium, which would put the beer culture in that country at risk.
I would like to thank the Commissioner for the thorough answer he was willing to give me and from which it transpires that, naturally, further elaboration was required regarding the policy currently adopted by the Commission.
Nevertheless, I do not fully share the view that competition would therefore not be disrupted, although I have taken note of the fact that you now also provide for a contractual exemption clause.
As far as I am concerned, Commissioner, there is still great concern not only from me but also from within the sector with regard to the lack of clarity which currently - fourteen days prior to the coming into force of this regulation - exists regarding the guidelines on what is and is not allowed.
Although your explanation has shed some light on the matter, I think it is appropriate to also inform the sector of this.
My question in this respect is why should the system be changed if so far, its application has not resulted in any complaints?
Is there too little belief in self-regulation and does one want to push this regulation through at all costs within a sector which, in fact, is already having a hard time?
Mr Beysen, I agree with you that information, in this area as in any other, is important.
For this reason, when drawing up the proposal for a regulation in question, the Commission followed a policy of being open with information.
We are in fact now studying the responses we have received from all the parties concerned following the publication of the proposal in the Official Journal.
Once this assessment has been carried out, we will again consult the Member States and we are counting on adopting the new regulation before the end of the year.
We have communicated fully on every stage, which is the reason why we believe we have performed our duty to inform and consult.
Obviously, the Commission is always willing to clarify any points that might still be unclear.
As they deal with the same subject, Questions Nos 50 and 51 will be taken together.
Question No 50 by (H-0688/99):
Subject: Car prices Thanks to widespread publicity, the Commission will be aware that motor car manufacturers are charging considerably more in the UK than in other EU countries for identical cars.
What action does the Commission propose to take to counter this and similar examples of extortion by large companies?
I am indeed aware of the price discrepancies between the United Kingdom and other Member States and I share the honourable Members' concerns.
The Commission has found that these differences are partly due to the strength of the pound sterling, while they must in part be attributed to low net prices in Member States with high car taxation.
That is the case in particular in Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands.
I consider that a growing price transparency and the introduction of the euro are increasingly inducing customers from so-called high price markets to acquire their vehicles in other Member States.
This parallel trade is an important market-related factor which should contribute to a better convergence of prices throughout the Community.
The Commission has undertaken a number of initiatives to ensure this freedom for consumers.
In its report on the application of Regulation 1475/95 concerning car distribution, due before the end of the year 2000, the Commission will evaluate the impact of the exempted distribution system on car prices.
It will indeed provide an essential basis for the forthcoming discussion about the future legal framework for car distribution after the expiry of the current regulation on 30 September 2002.
Thank you, Commissioner, for your answer.
In my question I referred to similar examples and whilst car prices are perhaps the most widely publicised, there are other examples of companies that are making a mockery of the single market.
The Swedish Ikea furniture company, with which you will probably be familiar, provides two examples in their recent catalogues: a mirror cabinet which costs less than GBP 70 if purchased in Denmark costs GBP 94 in the United Kingdom.
A corner sofa which costs less than GBP 600 in Denmark costs nearly GBP 875 in the United Kingdom.
These are just two examples taken from one company.
There are plenty of others where people in the United Kingdom and, for all I know, other Member States, are being exploited by companies.
I wonder if the Commission can consider some action to protect consumers who are looking to the European Parliament, looking to the European Commission to protect them as citizens.
Can you consider some action in this area, not just limiting it to cars, which is perhaps the most publicised example?
You will see, Commissioner, that they want to ask you about sofas, not only about cars, but I am sure you will have an answer.
Thank you for this supplementary question.
Indeed I believe that serving the interests of consumers is the cornerstone of competition policy in the European Union.
Should we claim that a single market is really single only when there is unity of prices? I would not say so, because there will always be factors explaining certain price differentials.
Indeed, we might even perhaps consider that perfect unity of prices in a given market may be an indication of some sort of cartel prevailing in that market.
Having said that, I agree with you that a lot of price divergences in the present-day single market are explained by the frictions and obstacles that still exist.
Two powerful factors are at play today to help the market overcome those divergences and this will be increasingly the case.
One is of course the introduction of the euro. That of itself is going to make price comparisons easier.
And the second, which is having a powerful effect on the distribution of goods and services, is the Internet.
You ask whether the Commission should not take action vis-à-vis certain instances of considerable price divergences.
Yes, we should and do: in particular if we consider the car sector, you will be aware of a number of actions taken in the past and also very recently in the Commission against limitations imposed by car manufacturers on parallel imports of cars.
The publication of the comparative list of car prices also goes very much in that direction.
The latest edition was published on 22 July 1999.
We agree that the Commission should also use its competition policy instruments for these purposes; and may I submit that it does so.
I am pleased to see that the Commissioner has, along with my own Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr Byers, formed the impression that the European car industry has indeed taken UK consumers for a ride.
But I have to say that I cannot agree with you that it is a simple exchange rate issue because it would not account for the fact that some cars cost around four thousand pounds more in the UK than they do, for example, in the Netherlands.
If it were only a question of the exchange rate, then prices should also go down with exchange rate variables. Why then, for example, do imported cars - which now represent over 70% of the UK market - get dearer as the pound is getting stronger?
How do UK car manufacturers export record numbers of cars to the continent at a time when exporting is more expensive? Why are cars built in the UK cheaper on the continent just as our pound is making our exports more expensive?
I am afraid I do not accept the logic of this wholly.
I believe - after an 18 months' investigation by a UK newspaper, following your investigation - that time is running out and the car industry now wants to find a settlement to this issue.
If I were to arrange a round table with the industry - with dealers and manufacturers - would you be willing to come along to it and discuss with them how we can find a way through the problem while, at the same time, resorting to competition instruments if we have to?
Thank you, Mrs McCarthy, and for the emphasis on urgency in using competition instruments, which indeed we do.
May I draw your attention again to the fact that we have opened a considerable number of investigations concerning restrictions on parallel imports and, in some cases, we have already reached a conclusion by imposing quite considerable fines.
Of course it would be inadequate to attribute price differentials, in cars in particular, only to exchange rates.
I mention that as one factor - it is not the only one.
Divergences in the taxation of different types of cars are of course a factor but this brings us to the question of how easy or how difficult it is for the European Union to make any decision concerning tax matters.
I also appreciate your offer of an invitation to a round table.
I will be glad to consider that in the context of the various invitations a Commissioner receives.
You are no doubt aware that we are in the process of preparing a report on the application of the current block exemption regulation which is our main area of reflection at present.
We have received many questionnaires in response to our consultation exercise.
The report which is due at the end of the year will not as yet contain any proposals but will analyse the impact of the exempted distribution system which is due at the end of 2000 and will contain a fully-fledged analysis of the impact of the block exemption and this should be the basis for subsequent decisions.
I wonder whether the Commissioner would agree that the last two questioners who were asking the Commission for action would do better to ask their own party leader, Mr Blair, to get the over-high level of the pound - which has been kept too high by high interest rates in the UK - down to a realistic level; and also try to get Mr Blair to start campaigning to join the euro, when there would be extra transparency. Would that not help?
You will see, Commissioner, that this is a British question, but you have a right to reply if you think it appropriate.
I would be delighted to do so if this important subject were to fall within the competence of the Commissioner responsible for competition which, I am afraid, is not the case.
Question No 52 by (H-0693/99):
Subject: State aid for the German timber­processing industry What action has the Commission taken, or will it take, in view of the increasing amount of state aid Germany is granting to sawmills in what used to be East Germany? The mills in question are small or medium-sized businesses which are very efficient and thus require so few employees that they meet the EU criteria for the allocation of state aid to SMEs, yet this means they are able to compete on unequal conditions and distort competition on the market.
Does the Commission consider it right that German sawmills which are highly automated and particularly efficient should be granted such huge amounts of state aid that other market operators are forced out of the market owing to unfair competition? Will it also say whether it still considers the existing rules on the allocation of state aid to SMEs to be adequate, in particular the 250-employee ceiling?
The Commission is aware that the sawmills in what used to be East Germany are granted considerable state aid.
While it is possible that the aid in question is compatible with the German systems and the Treaties, the Commission is very concerned by the distortion that it causes through the concentration of growing levels of production capacity in this particular industrial sector.
As regards the acceptability of this aid, the Commission is carrying out a particularly detailed study of the compatibility with the common market of a series of aid measures for numerous businesses, in particular KNT, Klenk e Pollmeier.
It must be pointed out that this new capacity is to be found in areas that are assisted pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty, that is to say, in regions where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is a serious underemployment problem.
The assessment of the compatibility of all the aid granted has not yet finished, due to the information being incomplete.
The investigation addresses in particular, the issue of respecting the criteria laid down by the relevant regional systems.
Moreover, the Commission has adopted initiatives with the intention of clarifying whether the beneficiaries are complying with all the criteria concerning the definition of small and medium-sized businesses, set out in its recommendation of 1996.
In particular, I would like to stress the importance of ensuring that there is no evasion of the regulations.
Businesses which formally respect the criteria for the definition of small and medium-sized businesses - particularly because they have less than 250 employees - but are in fact controlled by a large business, or by a group of large businesses, should not benefit from special incentives intended for small and medium-sized businesses.
Finally, as regards the question of the adequacy of the current rules on the authorisation of state aid for small and medium-sized businesses, an overall study of the subject would be needed.
As for the specific characteristics of the forestry sector, the Commission recently issued a communication on the competitiveness of forestry product industries and related industries in the European Union.
This document, issued in October of this year, states that among other things, with the aim of ensuring the overall, sustainable competitiveness of the European Union forestry industry or related industries, it will be necessary to guarantee an environment that promotes fair competition and to encourage European Union industry to adapt to fiercer competition.
Many thanks to Commissioner Monti for a very thorough answer.
I look forward to the Commission' s continuing, first and foremost, with its investigation into extensive state aid and, especially, to its conducting a general investigation into whether the conditions of state aid to small and medium-sized enterprises should be changed.
I hope to be, and look forward to being, kept up to date on this matter, which means an incredible amount to industry not merely in Denmark but also in other countries, including the western part of Germany.
. This is just to confirm to Mrs Riis-Jørgensen, whose continuing and deep interest in state aid matters is well-known to and appreciated by the Commission, that the investigation is going to continue; that the effective applicability of the provisions concerning SMEs is one of our concerns; and that in all state aid investigations the question of the effects on trade between Member States is at the forefront of the analysis.
Thank you very much, Mr Monti, for being here this afternoon.
Since the time allocated to Questions to the Commission has elapsed, Questions Nos 53 to 107 will be replied to in writing.
That concludes Questions to the Commission.
(The sitting was suspended at 7.10 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)
Statement by the President
I would like to make a point of order under Rule 108 related to Rule 112.
In various Spanish and French prisons 18 Basque political prisoners have been undergoing hunger strikes since 1 November.
They are revolting against the denial of elementary human rights by the French and Spanish authorities.
One of the hunger strikers, after 44 days of fasting, has today been transferred to the Hôtel de Dieu Hospital in Paris in extremely poor health after losing 24 kilos.
Eighteen years have passed since the courageous Westminster MP Bobbie Sands and 10 other Irish political prisoners staged a hunger strike to death.
Only when the hunger striker was out of the way did the Thatcherite Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, James Prior, acknowledge that the British Government was ready to accept reforms.
We need, right now, very urgently, before it is too late, a similar statement from the Spanish and French Governments.
We ask this House under Rule 112 to accept this question as an urgent matter.
Mr Gorostiaga, as far as the procedure for urgent debate in Rule 112 is concerned, strict rules apply and the deadline has already expired.
As far as Rule 108 is concerned, you need the backing of one tenth of the members of the House and clearly they have not assembled.
I shall pass your request on but I fear that we can do nothing about this matter at present.
2000 budget (continuation)
The next item is the resumption of the joint debate on the Budget 2000.
Mr President, I should like first to extend my group' s warmest thanks to the two rapporteurs.
If we look back to where we stood at the beginning of the budgetary procedure, then we can see, in our view, just how far we have come during difficult, at times extremely difficult negotiations.
I also appreciate the fact, Commissioner, that you too endeavoured to mediate in the difficult and, in the final analysis, unsuccessful budgetary conciliation, although the conduct of the Commission itself during this whole procedure was not, of course, without its contradictions.
On the one hand, it took too timid an approach to the declaration in the minutes of the interinstitutional agreement and entered into international multiannual commitments while wanting to solve the financial problem for the year 2000 alone during the initial stage.
That was too little as far as we were concerned.
At the same time, we realised that Mr Prodi was already making preliminary plans up to the year 2006 - a decided lack of coordination, Mr President of the Commission.
For the rest, the question naturally arises in the wake of the decisions by the European Council as to what will happen in future with heading 7 of the budget?
Should we not also review the financial perspective, given the option, the option dynamically pursued by the European Council, to enlarge the circle of candidate countries? No, what we in the European Parliament want is to retain international credibility and a serious budgetary policy in this budgetary procedure even when financing the new priorities.
Parliament is conscious of its responsibility as part of the budgetary authority.
President Chirac' s praise this morning with respect to the budgetary and supervisory function of the European Parliament emphasised this yet again.
We do not want to repeat this year' s experience of acting as a repair shop, with a plethora of supplementary and amending budgets and transfers of appropriations!
I therefore say quite clearly to the Council: by failing to act this week, by failing to endorse the proposals tabled by Parliament under option 3, you have put us in a very difficult position and have pushed us almost to the limit of what we can do under the Rules of Procedure.
Please do not do so again.
We stand today by the offer made by Parliament as a symbiosis between budgetary discipline and the readiness to consider precise reductions rather than all-inclusive reductions, as you intended and, at the same time, to enter into and finance the necessary political priorities.
I would also say on behalf of my group that if you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, are able tomorrow morning to table the written declaration which we have demanded, we are prepared to support and implement the compromise.
I want to be perfectly clear on this: with the relevant declarations by the institutions, including on the question of the limited review of the financial perspective which we expect from the Commission by April, and the corresponding statements from the Council, you are all, to borrow an expression from the money markets, accepting a bill of exchange and anyone who fails to honour the bill will lose their credit rating.
Hence, in view of past experience and in view of today' s discussion, a very clear warning to the Council: if we fail in the spring to reach an adequate solution for the multiannual programme for Kosovo and the western Balkans, combined with a corresponding commitment by the Council, you will end up in extremely dangerous waters as far as the budgetary procedure for the year 2001 is concerned.
We here in Parliament want to avoid this.
It is up to you to ensure that we get both the Budget 2000 and a reasonable multiannual programme to finance these priorities under way.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the Budget 2000 is the budget which will take us into the next millennium.
It represents a gesture. It represents a gesture in terms of political content; but it must also be a gesture of how we should actually have to deal with each other.
I would like to start by saying that we as a Parliament must thank our two rapporteurs in this respect, with respect to the debate of the Budget 2000, for carrying out excellent work, for getting things under way which have been discussed at length in this House.
I remember the new regulation in connection with the Technical Assistance Offices which Commissioner Schreyer referred to this morning.
We had a meeting of the Committee on Budgets last week at which very clear commitments were entered into as far as the future is concerned, so that we can expect to make progress here and exercise control.
We shall support you in a constructively critical manner on this question of the future development of the Technical Assistance Offices.
As far as past experience is concerned, namely the proper deployment of appropriations, we have made a gesture by increasing OLAF staff numbers.
We have made quite unequivocal gestures as far as one of the largest items of budgetary expenditure is concerned, namely agricultural policy.
We want to break away from mere market price support and move towards rural development and additional appropriations will be provided in forthcoming budgets in order to do so.
We have made it clear that only consumers are important in our Europe, which is why we have strengthened the Food Safety Agency, in order to make a gesture at this point, and we have entered relevant appropriations to make up for social weaknesses in the budget, so that progress can be made in combating unemployment.
These are things which have been discussed in this Parliament with great unanimity and on which progress has been made on the initiative and with the support of our rapporteurs.
The decisive point in this discussion or rather the point which caused us the most work and the most worry was of course the question of how to finance properly one of the greatest challenges facing Europe in the coming years?
I refer of course to the Balkans and, more specifically, to Kosovo which will be targeted as a priority next year.
You can rest assured that we in this House will do everything to lay solid foundations.
We made this very clear during the budgetary procedure.
We are interested in having sound foundations so that we do not just lurch from one problem to the next, but so that we can work together on a solid basis for years to come, because the problem in the Balkans is not a problem which can be solved in a year.
We have shown very clearly that we do not just want to demand more here; we also want to do our homework.
We have made transfers in the budget, very specific transfers.
We have not made any general reduction; instead we have said we will make reductions as and where possible.
We have expressly made an exception for non-governmental organisations or aid programmes, such as those to combat AIDS in third world countries, which need all the support they can get.
We have done all this with a great deal of unanimity.
This also demonstrates how important these matters are to us.
You have seen for yourself that there is a great deal of unanimity in every debate and in every vote in this House.
Completely irrespective of our ideological backgrounds, we have conducted ourselves in a manner which must have made it clear to you that we take the matter and the manner of our dealings with each other very seriously indeed.
And this will be our motto for the coming years.
I must support Mr Böge all the way on this.
We shall also endeavour in the future to create a basis of trust in our dealings with each other, a trust which was perhaps lacking at several junctures this year, both on our part towards you and on your part towards us.
So we are holding out our hand, as Social Democrats and Socialists, as a sign that, if tomorrow morning you in fact table the declaration as described, we shall support it. And we shall ensure that there is a proper budget for the year which also offers a perspective.
But we shall also work consistently towards ensuring in the coming years that again we do not lurch from one problem to another but that we have a serious plan on which everyone can build, especially those who really need the money.
In other words those now living inside the European Union and those living outside the Union who have a right to our solidarity.
We shall continue to do our homework in the future.
We shall take our potential as a Parliament very seriously, on that you can depend.
But we shall also make an effort to work more closely with you, so that we do not need, as in this year, to find a solution so close to the end of the year.
When you have trialogues and conciliation, you should use them for their intended purpose so that compromises can be found before the eleventh hour.
We call on you to move towards us and we will move towards you.
But, as we have said, you can be sure that we also know what we can do if we are trifled with!
Mr President, I would also like to start by thanking both rapporteurs for their hard work.
It was not easy this year.
The first lesson we can draw from this year' s budgetary discussion is that the Commission and the Council need to be careful about making statements in public regarding how much money is available for a certain cause without knowing how exactly it will be funded.
This does not seem to bear repetition.
I would like to move on to the budget itself.
Firstly, I would like to focus on the agricultural budget itself.
Category 1 A. I question the benefit of the exercise which we started three years ago, the so-called ad hoc procedure that we would refer to the most recent estimates for the following year and establish the budget for compulsory expenditure accordingly.
I can only note that the Council has adhered to July' s budget.
The Council' s perspective is, of course, unique, but I fail to comprehend why one should always adhere to what one has established in July.
I do admit that some shifting has occurred between different budget headings.
With regard to category 1 B, I appreciate that the Council has adopted Parliament' s amendment in order to achieve a quality policy for European agricultural products.
At a time when consumers are increasingly anxious about the quality of food, I think that this is urgently needed and therefore meets with my appreciation.
As for the other amendments in category 1 B, my group will support these.
At a time of WTO negotiations, when everyone talks about a sound rural policy, it is positive that the European Union pursues an active policy in this field.
Then I would like to comment on category 4 of the budget, including Kosovo.
Firstly, I think that Parliament has shown its goodwill by finding the necessary funding for Timor and Turkey within the budget itself.
This has clearly been down to the Parliament' s goodwill.
Another noteworthy fact with regard to category 4 is that we have established that on 30 September of every year, a project surfaces which ties up about 10% of the money and then miraculously, two months later, around 100% of the money is allocated.
How does this inventiveness come about so swiftly?
Would it not be possible to space it out a bit more and, in this context, to take into account the Court of Auditors' observation in this respect?
The group can agree with the method of financing such as it has been regulated provisionally for Kosovo.
It differs quite significantly from the original amounts specified by the Commission.
We look forward to establishing a new budget as soon as possible, should this prove necessary.
The objective of my group is not to dash the financial perspectives as such.
We are more than willing to discuss any well-defined proposals, provided they are accompanied by sound arguments.
I am also awaiting the compromise which will hopefully materialise tomorrow regarding payment appropriations.
My group is divided on this matter.
According to some Members, the payment appropriation level should definitely be lowered.
If I have interpreted the noises in this respect correctly, then this will also happen.
As far as we are concerned, Kosovo should not be the cause of an inter-institutional war.
We should be able to solve this matter on the basis of arguments.
Peace in the Balkans is worth a great deal to us.
Mr President, we are now into the last stage of the budget for 2000.
It is the first European budgetary discussion in which I am involved, and I must say that in my inexperience, I have grossly overrated the rationality employed to spend taxpayers' money.
The first party at which we can point the finger must surely be the Council of Ministers. They were so much more concerned with their own national purses than about the people in Kosovo that previous pledges were fiddled.
In Berlin, a protocol was concluded, on the basis of which financial perspectives could be adapted if so necessitated by the reconstruction of Kosovo.
At two Conferences of Donors, the European Union committed itself to contributing EUR 500 million.
According to a report by the World Bank, it is possible to absorb this amount.
A frontload approach (a great deal of money in the first couple of years) is said to be the best way of kick-starting the economy.
The EUR 500 million are necessary, they have been promised and they can be found within the current budget.
It is, however, necessary, so as to prevent developing countries from being presented with the bill, to use margins from categories other than foreign expenditure.
There is, for example, a generous margin in category 1 B, rural development.
Proposals to apply this margin and offer Kosovo prospects for the future, were not even considered by the Council.
The hard lesson of the significance of conflict prevention, the Berlin Protocol, ... rational arguments were discounted when the national ministers defended the agreements of Berlin selectively and undoubtedly worked out in the mean time how much unused funding from the margins they would recover at the end of the year.
Surrealism reached yet another level when negotiations were held regarding this couple of hundred million when Commission President Prodi committed the European Union to the tune of EUR 5.5 billion in political terms for the reconstruction of the entire Balkans.
It is to the credit of the rapporteur that these statements did not remain airy fairy but were given substance in a declaration.
I would explicitly like to extend a warm thanks to Mr Bourlanges for this.
This declaration has in the past couple of weeks been much deliberated and has even today created a lot of dust.
I believe that this will be topic of conversation tomorrow and the day after that.
It is a rather awkward situation.
It is not exactly a model of a rational decision but rather a case of panic stations.
I personally, for example, support Ajax but they manage to marry beauty, speed and tactics rather well.
Since it is as yet unclear what exactly we will be voting on on Thursday, I will indicate which issues meet with agreement within my group.
Firstly, until such time as figures are available regarding the needs in Kosovo, I will keep referring to the World Bank' s report and the EUR 500 million which have been pledged.
I am prepared provisionally to discuss a maximum amount which is under this amount, but I would like to receive confirmation that the multiannual programme which is to be drafted in April, is to apply to the entire Balkan region, including Kosovo, and will run from 2000 to 2006, inclusively.
If necessary, Kosovo should receive the whole share, even as early as the year 2000.
The second point is that the timeframe for allocating funds to Kosovo should also make it possible for the entire share to be spent wisely.
To me, this means that April seems to be the ultimate date for reaching a decision.
The timeframe, together with the possibilities of adapting the present budget, should this appear necessary in April, are therefore crucial to the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner. Like Mrs Buitenweg, I too am new to the budgetary procedure but, like everyone else, I know that any budget is, by definition, the expression of political will.
Having seen the final propositions notified to us at the end of weeks of laborious negotiations between Parliament and the Council, I greatly fear that our political will appears, to say the least, blurred and wavering, especially as far as external action is concerned, which is the main bone of contention.
There is a marked gap between the Union' s loud proclamations of its ambition to play a more active role in the settlement of major international problems and the haggling which we are forced to engage in with government representatives when it comes to finding money to fund the new priorities.
My group voted at first reading against any reduction in the appropriations allocated to old but still equally important priorities, especially appropriations allocated to cooperation with and the development of southern countries, in order to fund new expenditure. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has never been an indication of great political imagination.
We therefore voted in favour of a reasonable review of the financial perspectives over several years and the proposal made by our general rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, went in the right direction, calling for a reasonable review of heading 4.
My group therefore supported his strategy to make the Council face up to its responsibilities: either we were to obtain the funding which would allow us to honour our political commitments or we would have recourse to Article 272 of the Treaty, which authorises us to determine non-compulsory expenditure ourselves, albeit within strict limits.
Having made one concession after another, we are now back at square one and, in the name of the cast iron logic of the budgetary stability pact, we now have the following situation: firstly, estimates and financial requirements for the reconstruction of Kosovo which have mysteriously dropped from EUR 500 million - the figure put forward by the Commission, the World Bank, the Member States and the media - to 420 and then to some 300 million; secondly, a reduction in the appropriations which we voted for East Timor and for the victims of the earthquakes in Turkey; thirdly, cuts in appropriations for cooperation, food aid and aid to Palestine and the countries of the southern Mediterranean, the TACIS programme for eastern Europe and support for human rights and, lastly, cuts totalling some EUR 2 billion in payment appropriations.
The result is, without doubt, an improvement on the Council' s initial position but, even so, what would our responsibility be if we were to accept such a compromise?
Let me quote just one example: tomorrow we are going to honour Mr Gusmão the head of the resistance of the people of East Timor.
Shall we, at the same time, tell him that we agree to reduce reconstruction aid for his country by one third? That is why, Mr President, my group feels that this compromise is unacceptable and we are unable to back it.
Mr President, first of all, I would like to say how much I appreciate the report by Mr Bourlanges, who has done a commendable job throughout this period, regarding the budget but also, in my opinion, regarding two of the main issues we are faced with.
The first concerns Kosovo.
Kosovo has become, objectively, an important political message for the Commission - and quite rightly so - with the aim of relaunching the political proposal put forward by Europe on the international stage, in order to show that there is in fact a serious intervention by Europe, a Europe that is not just about the economy.
We have all approved this political message, but right now, we are discovering that the funds, for their part, do not exist.
My disapproval is aimed precisely at this type of behaviour, because the responsibility cannot be off-loaded onto the House for expenditure which should have been budgeted for.
We do not agree, either myself personally or my delegation.
I would like to emphasise this, so that we will not be given this responsibility in the future, a political responsibility that should not be seen merely in economic terms.
Secondly, I would like to emphasise the promise we were made not too long ago, at the start of the presentation of the budget, on administrative reform of the so-called TAOs.
In my opinion, we might manage to find funds to allocate in the future for the various budget lines if we manage to carry out a fair reform meant to support the various departments which provide praiseworthy support, both on a personal level and for research.
The reform must be carried out straight away, immediately following the adoption of this budget, in order to allow us to proceed to fair planning.
If this is what happens, we will have the chance to intervene, to influence our economies and reach one of our objectives as MEPs: relaunching and developing our countries.
Mr President, I should like first to send a message of appreciation to our rapporteur, a message of support and friendship for the work which he has managed to carry out up to this very afternoon.
Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you should know that this Parliament, which was prepared to say that the intergovernmental conference should be revised and make a multitude of demands, will tomorrow probably welcome the fact that you decided at Helsinki to allow us two observers, rather than two representatives, and that you wish to confine yourselves to matters which Parliament considered were absolutely out of the question.
It will be the same with the budget, Madam President-in-Office.
Our rapporteur had the vision and the courage to bring us to the point where, for the first time, we were going to have an in-depth discussion of what we would consider fair.
If you want to fund Kosovo, if you want to honour the somewhat hasty commitments which the President of the Commission entered into vis-à-vis this region, then give us the budget resources so that we can be responsible and consistent and give us the chance to revise the financial perspectives.
What you are in fact doing is giving us a little and throwing some ballast overboard.
You agree to give us a few minor flexibility instruments and, needless to say, this Parliament will be prepared tomorrow morning to discredit itself, to abandon the route which it had mapped out and which was the right one, in order to engage in confrontation with the Council on matters of principle.
You stand to gain on this ground too.
It is sad for our institution because once again it has shown that it does not have the other "b" word, it does not have the bravery to make this gesture and stand by it.
Mr President, the budget for the financial year 2000 will inevitably take the form of an increase, and this increase will be higher than the increase in national budgets.
How is it that the Union budget is exempt from the discipline which Europe imposes on its Member States? I am happy to talk about the unusual nature of the European structure, but we must avoid having one sauce for the goose and another for the gander.
Have we forgotten that the same citizens finance both the national and the Community budgets?
As always, the demand for efficiency has again been put to bad use in order to justify action by the European Union. I shall not refer to the political choices which have been made or the haggling which has formed the basis of the budgetary discussion between the Council and Parliament.
We denounced them at the first reading of this budget.
I make this point because we feel that this is a constant factor in Community policy.
Agriculture is a perfect example.
Agriculture was a hallowed common policy; it was the cement which held the European edifice together and today it is the main loser in the budgetary debate. We cannot accept that.
This is the price which Europe is paying, once again, for its lack of consistency.
The race towards world prices and increased yields have jeopardised what was most precious to us: the quality of our food and the survival of rural employment.
Our quality of life is being sold off and this too will have to be paid for tomorrow.
These are priorities which we think should be financed, rather than increasing programmes which some of us at least find obscure.
The President of the Court of Auditors yesterday drew the attention of this House to the, I quote, "persistence of the 'spending culture' within the Community, more concerned with the volume of expenditure than with its quality" .
In fact, by wanting to do too much, Europe does nothing properly, which is why the French members of the EDD Group will be voting against this budget, which does not meet the expectations of the citizens of Europe.
Mr President, the budgetary discussion this year has been so strange that, even during the time which has passed between the speech by the general rapporteur, at the beginning of the debate, and my own intervention, the following have taken place, in chronological order: an informal meeting of the Committee on Budgets, a meeting of the budgetary Council and a meeting of the political groups.
This is happening because the interinstitutional negotiation has been very bad.
We have debated the ancillary clauses while the Council was delaying the basic decisions.
And now, when there is hardly any time left, we are negotiating with the clock stopped.
In May, this Parliament experienced a serious confrontation between those of us who wanted Agenda 2000 and the Berlin financial perspectives, and those who, for budgetary reasons and for reasons of domestic politics, did not want the agreement.
In the end we approved it by a simple majority.
But there was still Kosovo and a Council statement which contained a commitment to review the financial perspectives in category 4 for extraordinary reasons.
A war in Europe is always an extraordinary reason, the most extraordinary of all reasons to justify a partial review of the financial perspectives.
In this discussion Parliament has been more up to the job than the Council.
I am sure that the recourse to Article 272 was excessive, and would even have been counter-productive if it had been brought into effect.
But it is also true that it is the extraordinary rigidity of the Council in negotiation which has led us to take this action.
Finally, and simply, under the pressure of having to confront a high level of payments, the Council has performed a U-turn and now accepts what the Parliament requested in the first reading.
Would it not have been simpler to accept these requests by Parliament beforehand and to have prevented all this last-minute panic, which does absolutely nothing for the serious and efficient image which the European institutions are supposed to have?
I welcome this agreement and this commitment.
Parliament is going to finance all its political priorities, including the fisheries agreement with Morocco, which is of prime economic interest to my country, Spain.
But make no mistake: the commitment which we have all made is very serious and a disagreement on the part of the Council would have disastrous consequences not only for interinstitutional confidence but also for the 2001 budgetary procedure.
It is up to you, Council, to see to it that this does not happen, and remember that not even those of us who defended, defend and will defend the Berlin financial perspectives, could accept the ceiling on external actions not being raised, if the figures require it, in April of next year.
chairman of the Committee on Budgets. Mr President, let me get the customary thanks to the rapporteurs out of the way first in case I run out of time at the end.
It is always the right thing to do but on this occasion it is genuine thanks to Mr Bourlanges, to Mr Virrankoski and an additional one on this occasion to Mr Colom for the work they have done in a very difficult procedure.
I would also like to thank those people within Parliament who helped make this budget a success.
Mr Bourlanges mentioned at our first reading the staff of the Committee on Budgets, the long hours they work, not only at nights but at weekends also, to make sure that we can function.
Also thanks to all the political group staff.
That includes Mr Westenbroek who sometimes gets right on my nerves but thank you to all those who have helped us get this far.
Let us not lose sight of what is in this budget.
We are talking about one issue which is how to fund Kosovo but there is a lot in this budget that we should be proud of, as Mr Walter and others have already reminded us.
The last time we were in a budget debate, I think, I saw the Council benches absolutely empty.
This must be a very serious debate when I see the number of people who are here from the Council.
If we put their numbers together, and the Commission numbers together, they probably outnumber the Members in this Chamber, which signifies that they are looking forward to something being said.
Whether that be from our side or from your side, Madam President-in-Office, I am not too sure, but they are here to keep their eye on somebody.
I intend to ask questions, Mr President, and I hope we can find a solution to them tomorrow.
Yesterday when we voted in our committee we took a position which I, and I think the vast majority of our committee, are quite happy with.
Let me say this: we have no problem.
You do.
And now you are looking to us to get you out of a problem.
I do not blame the Finnish President at all.
You have been quite honourable in your dealings with us.
It is the ones behind you who have been giving you a lot of problems.
We know that.
Quite frankly, we have got into this mess and now we are being asked to bail you out.
Let me try and get some clarification on what you said in your speech, Madam President-in-Office.
I have called a special Budgets Committee meeting for tomorrow at 9.15 a.m. or thereabouts when the votes are finished and we will vote on the Colom report and we will vote, if need be, on changes to Mr Bourlanges' report.
But we need some clarification on some issues.
I turn to the Commission because within the text there are three declarations and the first is a declaration from the Commission.
The original text had the figure EUR 5.5 billion which has been mentioned by Mrs Buitenweg.
The Council has actually taken that figure out.
I am asking the Commission to clarify that it is a figure of about EUR 5.5 billion we are talking about when we talk about the aid that is needed for Kosovo and the Balkans in the light of what President Prodi and Commissioner Patten said.
So, some clarification is needed from the Commission.
In category four, and before I request clarification there, when the President-in-Office mentioned help for places like Kosovo and East Timor, let me remind the Council that it did not put any money on the line for East Timor - we did.
Even at the second reading it did not put money on the line - we did.
If you had not agreed the EUR 125 million for Morocco - even before we had an agreement - we probably would not be in the position we are in now.
But that is another matter.
I need clarification on three things for our committee meeting tomorrow.
We have had a chat about this, but I want to hear you say it here tonight.
When I was noting down what you were saying, in English you said that the ceiling for heading 4 should not be amended permanently.
You clarified that by saying: the words 'at this moment' should also be added. Let me try and simplify it.
Can you confirm that in that phrase you are talking only about the year 2000?
When you talk of no revision for category 4 being necessary are you talking only about the year 2000? That is the first thing we need to have clarified.
The second thing we need clarified is this: on the EUR 2 billion in payments of compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure, can you confirm that this is the position of the Council - meaning the Member States and not just you? Can we assume that will not be challenged before we take our vote tomorrow morning?
Thirdly, can you produce in writing your position for our meeting tomorrow so that Mr Colom i Naval can make proposals? If we get those things clarified I think we can get the solution the Council is looking for.
Let me say one last thing.
We all have to learn lessons from this and the one that the Council must learn more than anything else is, not to take Parliament for granted.
I too should like to start with a thank you to my colleagues in the Committee on Budgets.
As Greens, Mrs Buitenweg and I are both new to the Committee on Budgets and we had some difficulty settling in.
But I must say that, in contrast to national politics, what is striking in Europe is that practical politics are not party political and the European Parliament is aware of its responsibility on material matters, a responsibility which was, of course, heightened or highlighted by the poor turnout at the European elections.
We all know that we must present the citizens of Europe with a solid policy on the budget and on budgetary control and that we must ensure that both are efficient and transparent.
I consider that the European Parliament has been successful on this point in these budgetary negotiations.
I think that we leave these budgetary negotiations a stronger Parliament, in my view a very important point.
The Council must finally get it into its head that there is one thing you cannot do and that is to take on more and more at European level without entering into serious negotiations with Parliament as to how these additional commitments are to be financed.
The matters at issue this year were not only Kosovo, East Timor and the earthquakes in Turkey.
We all know that enlargement to the east was also an issue.
We all know that the conclusions of Helsinki in relation to Turkey, and in relation to enlargement to the east in general, mean that we will be taking on even more sooner or later.
That is why we need to fall back on serious negotiation as far as the budget is concerned and the Council can rejoice in the fact that this European Parliament has grown in stature and political awareness with its responsibility on budgetary matters.
We shall ensure much more emphatically in the future that there is proper implementation of the budget at European level.
Mr President, the European Parliament came out clearly in favour of a review of the interinstitutional agreement at first reading of the budget in order to be able to honour the commitments in connection with the fisheries agreement, aid to Kosovo, aid to East Timor and support for the victims of the earthquakes.
We made it clear by a large majority that new political priorities must not be financed at the cost of other, unfinished tasks.
The compromise negotiated between the Council and Parliament which lies before us today takes no account whatsoever of this basic position of Parliament.
I seriously wonder where exactly the compromise lies, what justification we have for using this term.
We are struggling for social justice in the world.
That does not mean taking appropriations from the poor in one part of the world and giving them to the poor in another part of the world.
Reducing appropriations for social tasks in order to fund foreign policy challenges is not a solution.
A budget which is designed on such lines and which, moreover, does not even provide sufficient appropriations for the so-called new priorities, takes all our political declarations and resolutions to the point of absurdity.
Parliament must therefore say no to this pseudo compromise.
What is needed is the courage to draw the obvious conclusions from the development of European integration and to provide the EU with sufficient funds to carry out its tasks.
It is high time that we really started thinking and acting as Europeans and establishing fully justified individual interests in this context.
It is unacceptable to continue acting in this upside-down way in budgetary and fiscal matters.
Parliament should stand firm on its demand for a review of the financial perspective.
The financial room for manoeuvre needed to do so can be created within the framework of European Union decisions, namely by setting the use of own resources from gross domestic product at a higher level.
If we want to stop patching things up every year, then we must turn our serious attention to the question of the reform of European own resources.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, between the first and second readings of the draft budget for the year 2000 we have added EUR 3.5 billion, in other words another three and a half billion in taxes.
This would not be much if the money were not squandered in and, above all, outside Europe.
In Europe, appropriations for the reconstruction of Kosovo would have been saved had we not destroyed Kosovo on the basis of alleged massacres ascribed to the Serbs as the OSCE has now admitted.
Especially as we are redirecting EUR 110 billion allocated to rural development in order to finance Kosovo.
In other words, we are robbing our own farmers in order to pay the Albanians in the name of the principle of "you first" .
It is as unhealthy as the fact that half our debates here this afternoon have been devoted to a province of the Serbian State which is not even a member of the European Union.
It is true that, as far as the European budget is concerned, the worst offences are committed when we pour money outside the continent of Europe: EUR 10 million for Central Asia, EUR 14.5 million for the displaced people of Latin America, EUR 4 million for human rights in South Africa and Timor etc., etc.
That would be all well and good if, at the same time, we were not planning to cut EUR 5 million from appropriations for our beekeepers who face competition from adulterated honey from abroad.
While we are spending money here, social austerity is being imposed in our 15 countries.
Doctors and nurses in French hospitals, who are among the most qualified in the world, are today on strike because budgetary austerity has just cut back hospital expenditure and health expenditure.
This situation is all the more disgusting in that, at the same time, we are paying EUR 45 million to ACP banana producers, some of which are American multinationals established in Cameroon and the Ivory Coast and which are being paid EUR 45 million under this European budget.
This, then, is stupid spending on top of customer spending on top of ideological spending. It all adds up to a lot, it adds up to much too much and that is reason enough to vote against it.
Mr President, if there is one issue on which the Council and Parliament should follow the same line of action, then surely it is the reconstruction of Kosovo.
But this is not in the offing as yet.
Parliament and the Council have turned Kosovo into an affair of honour over the financial ceiling of category 4.
This is taken to such an extreme that the rapporteur even threatened to include only EUR 115 million into the budget instead of the EUR 500 million which is required.
If this were to happen, then the Kosovars would be the big losers.
The only lifeline which then remains is a supplementary and amending budget later on in the year.
But the negotiations for this budget will also be extremely difficult, especially if they are linked to a debate regarding a multiannual programme for the entire Balkans.
It is therefore of key importance that a compromise is reached between the Council and Parliament regarding Kosovo before next Thursday.
An agreement is within reach, especially now the Council seems to agree to a smaller reduction in the payments for the structural funds.
Alongside an agreement on Kosovo, the Council and Parliament will also need to agree, in time, on an aid programme for the entire Balkans. How can this be financed?
The extent of the financial package for the external policy, as laid down in Agenda 2000, seems to suggest that the European Union, in this respect, only has a subordinate task.
This is also true of the Balkans.
Consequently, the Council' s attitude is one of ambivalence.
On the one hand, it refuses to raise the financial ceiling for category 4 and this is only right.
But on the other hand, the willingness of the Member States to contribute to financing the Balkans falls far below the mark.
As a result, the European Union budget is stretched, which will have a detrimental effect on the developing countries.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, one may well say, a good thing is worth waiting for, but we have waited almost too long for this still to be good.
I only have to think back to this afternoon and I must say in no uncertain terms that the situation is highly unsatisfactory and that we, the European Parliament, are now being more or less forced to circumvent our own Rules of Procedure in order to rescue and salvage what can be salvaged.
I should like to repeat once again that the situation as a whole is highly unsatisfactory.
It is unsatisfactory because - and this was also apparent at the Summit in Helsinki - we have a Council which blithely makes promises and then the budgetary authority, to which the Council also belongs, after all, then has to consider how everything can again be brought under control.
In addition, it is the first budget which we are required to implement in accordance with the decisions taken in Berlin on Agenda 2000 and we are already in a situation in which these decisions, yet again, cannot translate the Council' s wishes in financial terms.
More and more problems will arise in the coming years when everything decided in Helsinki - and I am thinking in particular of enlargement - finally impacts on the budget.
So what I expect, and this has been addressed by previous speakers here this evening, is a bit more consistency between what the Foreign Secretaries decide and what the Finance Ministers decide.
I think this can be established by each government in its own Member State, and that we can then find a joint solution to the problems.
The second matter which I would like to address is that of the Technical Assistance Offices, which have also played a special role in the past.
We here in Parliament have already clearly shown where the responsibility lies and have proposed clear solutions.
I should like to extend my particular thanks on this matter to the rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, who has been firm in making clear proposals with the support of this House.
If anyone has done justice to their responsibility in the procedure for Budget 2000, then it was the European Parliament.
I should like to stress once again at this point: we cannot keep on moving hand over hand, as it were, from one budget to the next and from one crisis to the next; on the contrary, the Council must pave the way so that we can put an end to such problems once and for all!
As far as the small budgets are concerned, and here thanks go to Mr Virrankoski, we are on the safe side and everything is under control.
I think that Parliament too, with its own budget, must do as it would be done by. That too is a very important point.
I refer in particular to travel costs for officials on active service, another problem which requires an urgent solution, and all the other points which, in my view, we solved at first reading and which we can now clear up once and for all.
Mr President, to be a rapporteur or not to be rapporteur? That is the question, if you will allow my immodesty.
Rarely have there been so many supporters of a Colom report in the Council.
I wonder where I am going wrong.
The Berlin European Council was obsessed with budgetary cuts, and not only gave rise to a reduction in the funds for structural policies compared to levels reached in 1999, but also forgot that there were other Community policies.
It appears that the Council deliberately daydreams about a European Union which will cost them nothing.
After a struggle, in six weeks of Council-Parliament negotiations, we tidied up headings 3 and 5.
But although we were negotiating while Kosovo was being bombed, the Council refused to adapt category 4 to something so obvious as the fact that, within a few months, the Union would be involved in its reconstruction, would have to provide humanitarian aid and would certainly have to compensate Romania and other countries, as well, for the losses suffered in trade on the Danube.
I believe that this a problem of short-sightedness.
Apparently, the Council cannot tell the difference between the financial perspectives, the multiannual framework for the budget and the budget itself.
To my mind, the Council is like one of those people whom you cannot ask to post a letter, because they cannot tell the difference between a letterbox and a drain-hole.
Exact figures are requested for something that can only be estimated approximately.
I took part in the negotiations and the Council' s only coherent argument is that we should not prejudice the Union' s negotiating position in the Conference of Donors.
For this there was a proposal and it seems that we have adopted it and this is the solid position we have taken.
The figures are confused.
The Commissioner spoke of EUR 500 million for 2000, on the same day that the President-in-Office of the Council spoke of EUR 12 billion for a period of seven years.
This clearly has to be resolved.
But we can wait, if necessary, for better figures, although we could make perfect use of the budgetary framework.
I believe that there is a time for everything, but we could deal with this problem perfectly - and much better - by means of an amending budget I/2000.
In that way we would also fulfil the wishes of the Council which aims for permanent budgeting.
Mr President, we endorsed the European Parliament' s strategy at first reading of the budget for 2000 and we now believe that the European Parliament cannot and must not lose face, because that would risk it losing credibility as well.
I say this in the context of the perspectives that are being presented to us in the current phase of the process.
I have no doubt that the latest proposal for a solution adopted by the board of the Committee on Budgets does not carry the negative burden from which the Council' s proposal suffers.
Even so, it does not provide any grounds for enthusiasm and all the indications are that it might even be made worse by new, unacceptable commitments.
In fact, and in the way this proposal for a solution was adopted, it can already be deduced from it that it is dropping the idea of a revision of the financial perspectives relating to heading 4 as well as the principle of new objectives being matched with new means.
It is therefore and inevitably resulting in an extremely arbitrary cut under the same budgetary heading of a sum of EUR 150 million, which particularly affects food aid, cooperation, the Mediterranean and the TACIS programme.
Apart from this, the ECO programme itself will also lose EUR 35 million in comparison to the first reading.
It is obvious that we cannot be satisfied with this kind of solution and our vote will certainly reflect this.
This is not a retreat by the European Parliament, but it will result in some priorities for the present financial year continuing to be paid for at the expense of previous objectives.
I shall also add that this kind of solution will also reduce sums destined for some priorities that have already been stated, specifically for Timor, which has gone from EUR 30 million to EUR 20 million.
We are obviously delighted that the heading that we proposed for Timor has been adopted and provided with appropriations, but as we stated at first reading, and now for even more reasons, we think that the appropriations earmarked for it are clearly insufficient.
These are the reasons that cause us to see the present budgetary process as clearly unsatisfactory.
Mr President, the EU' s Budget for the year 2000 is a genuine step in the right direction.
Let us not forget that the priorities we are setting relate to important matters.
We are investing in environmentally friendly agriculture, in the protection of animals and plants and in safe food.
We are increasing our efforts in support of vulnerable groups and in the fight against poverty in Europe.
We are investing in the fight against unemployment and, especially, in local employment initiatives.
We are preparing for the enlargement of the European Union to include new Member States and we emphasise that this process must be given a broadly citizen-oriented dimension.
The dialogue between the two sides of industry in the labour market must be extended to include the applicant States, and we want the Committee of the Regions to have the chance to develop a dialogue at local and regional level.
I myself have tabled a proposal concerning a means of achieving decentralised cooperation around the Baltic.
In spite of setting these priorities, we have nonetheless succeeded in reducing our budget commitments.
It was therefore naturally depressing that, as late as yesterday, we had not reached a final conclusion, despite the significant degree of essential unity.
I personally have been hoping for a compromise all this time.
We ought of course to be able to reach a compromise because, in my view, Parliament has already moved a long way in order to achieve this.
We have set aside the position we had adopted on principle to the effect that we ought now, before the year 2000, to revise the budget ceilings. This is because the Council wants to add major new items of expenditure in connection with Kosovo, East Timor and Turkey, among other issues.
We have accepted large reductions in payments in spite of the fact that we already have a mountain of payments before us.
It is not possible to decide upon major commitments year after year and then not, in fact, to pay out.
In spite of our opposition to linear cutbacks in aid, we have agreed to make substantial reductions, but of a more targeted nature.
It is important to note here that there is not in fact any prevailing disunity on the subject of Kosovo. I am therefore pleased that the Council now seems to be coming back to Parliament and approving our proposals.
The people of Kosovo ought not to continue to suffer because we cannot agree about the Budget.
Now, there is one more thing that is important. If we are going to cope successfully with the future, with the enlargement of the European Union and with developments in the Balkans over the next few years, then we must find a better way of cooperating.
Let us learn from the debate we have now had.
Mr President, whatever the budgetary sleights of hand to finance aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo, the Council, like Parliament, is refusing to address the real issue, which is that the reconstruction of Kosovo, like Serbia, which is in equal need of reconstruction, should be financed from the military budgets of the countries responsible for the bombing.
The military budgets should likewise pay the sums needed to compensate the neighbouring countries of Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, which all suffered from the war waged in the region by the West.
Even though there is no excuse for Milosevic' s past and present policy with regard to the Albanians of Kosovo or with regard to his own people, the few crumbs which have been thrown to reconstruct Kosovo alone, crumbs which bear no relation to the money spent during the actual war, cannot hide the fact that, once again, western intervention in the Balkans has not only failed to solve the problems in this part of the world, but has made them worse.
The countries in the region which were already poor are now poorer still, the living conditions of their people have deteriorated and the bombs certainly did not put an end to the chauvinism at which they were targeted.
The purpose of our refusal to vote in favour of the Bourlanges report is both to denounce the limited and derisory aid envisaged and, above all, to denounce the policy of the western powers in the Balkans.
Mr President, as European construction evolves, it is only natural that the mechanisms of democratic control should be strengthened.
Some of this responsibility falls to the European Parliament, specifically through the assessment that precedes the approval of the budget.
It is important that we do not limit ourselves to carrying out a series of formalities, without content or consequence, because that would entail the risk of reducing ourselves to a type of democratic alibi.
This would be a betrayal of the citizens we represent.
The message given at the discussion phase for the 2000 budget must then be taken seriously.
The European Parliament wants the assumption of new responsibilities by the European Union to be matched by new financial resources.
This applies to Kosovo, to the Balkans and to any budget heading.
It makes no sense to maintain recourse to initiatives completely lacking in transparency, such as the under-budgeting of new commitments or of payments for them, or both, linked to linear cuts in old commitments or payments, the inevitable consequence of which is delays in both as well as dozens of transfers throughout the year.
If the problem is a result of the European Union system of revenues it appears that the solution must be to change the system of financing the European Union.
I shall finish by referring to three situations which I shall continue to highlight: firstly, the intolerable delays in the fulfilling of payments relating to the implementation of the policy of cohesion.
Some delays I am aware of result in the negation of the principle of economic and social cohesion.
Secondly, there is also the support for the reconstruction of East Timor, because we have to adopt resolutions which draw attention to the situation there. Finally, we are right to award Xanana Gusmão with the Sakharov Prize, but at the same time, let us be aware that the EUR 20 million that the 2000 Budget has earmarked for East Timor merely represent the starting point.
Finally, I hope to see the commitments given to the outermost regions, identified at Amsterdam by Article 299(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
Mr President, we are the only true political think-tank in the European Union and so we ought to safeguard the priorities set out in Agenda 2000 which the first budget endeavoured to override.
It was wrong to introduce cuts in agricultural and social expenditure and in external actions concerning third countries.
New policies need new resources.
A total reform of the financial perspectives is essential.
Sadly, we failed to include appropriations for natural disasters in the budget just as we failed to allocate appropriations for the accession procedures of Malta and Cyprus.
I am not an economist, I am a politician; however, I would just like to make mention of the exceptional work of Mr Bourlanges and the other corapporteurs which I hope will help in reviewing certain issues so that we can assess the extent to which the Commission implements those political decisions in the budget and whether their implementation does in fact achieve the desired results.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance.
For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations!
They say that new brooms sweep clean.
We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today.
The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves?
I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs.
I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them.
A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF.
The fight against fraud must be a priority for us.
We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases.
We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance.
I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly.
I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros.
I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes.
When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking.
Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises.
We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications.
This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future.
Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training.
That should give us food for thought.
We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.
Mr President, Mr Wynn asked me three questions, which I briefly answered.
Firstly, he asked what I meant in my speech today when I referred to the category 4 financial framework.
My almost exact words were that it was the opinion of the Council that the financial framework for category 4 should not be amended permanently at the moment.
I was obviously speaking about the budget for 2000, in which the Council' s proposal for compromise involves the use of the flexibility instrument with regard to category 4.
In the future, obviously, the Council will investigate all the proposals the Commission will make.
Mr Wynn' s second question concerned the two billion cut in compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure.
The basic principle here is that the rules of the Council lay down that the President-in-Office represents the position of the Council and that, as the person to hold that position, I am therefore presenting the position of the Council and replying on its behalf.
Thirdly, the document based on the compromise has now been sent to Parliament' s Secretariat.
Does that answer your question Mr Wynn?
Mr President, it clarifies points 1 and 3 but I am not sure about point 2.
I will settle for clarification on point 2 at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning if that is necessary, but I was not sure exactly what you said on the second point.
Mr President, I did not understand a thing; I especially did not understand about point 1.
Mr Wynn asked a specific question.
You were asked to clarify your solemn declaration at the end of this afternoon' s debate when you said, if I correctly understood the translation which I heard, that the Council opposed a permanent review. (I am not about to say what a permanent review is but as you were the one who said it, you should know what it means.)
You said that the Council opposed a permanent review "at this moment" . "At this moment" does not mean a thing.
Mr Wynn asked you, Madam President-in-Office, if "at this moment" meant that the Council was opposed to a review of the financial perspectives for the year 2000, which would appear to us to be perfectly in keeping with the compromise which is being forged, or if "at this moment" meant something even vaguer?
You were asked to reply, and you said that you would reply but your reply was incomprehensible.
So please clarify, enlighten those of us who are not clever enough to understand when others speak in tongues.
In order to clear up this point, I shall call upon you once more, Madam Minister, and then the Commission.
Mr President, with regard to the declarations which have been spoken of, they have been adopted in just the form that Parliament proposed them.
I do not see anything vague here.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, once again, to clarify the point, the text is ready.
To answer the question, it is the text which was negotiated and which you had before you at the last sitting on Monday.
Mr Wynn asked me a question about the figure of EUR 5.5 billion.
At the OSCE Summit in Istanbul, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, addressed the political task in the entire region of the western Balkans for the period from 2000 to 2006, announcing that the Commission was considering a sum in the order of EUR 5.5 billion as the support needed.
You, the Parliament, have now called on the Commission to submit specific estimates for this region and this period in the form of a multiannual plan.
We are working on this.
I would ask you not to make any preliminary commitments but to bear in mind that the Commission must submit a precise and specific estimate for this period and this region which can and, of course, will then be checked by the Committee on Budgets or rather the budgetary authority and Parliament.
Allow me to finish by saying that the debate this evening has illustrated once again that the negotiations were difficult.
The Commission appreciates the efforts made by Parliament, and the rapporteur and the Committee on Budgets in particular, and the efforts made by the Finnish Presidency of the Council.
But I think that, if the result is a good one, then the effort will have been worth it and I hope that a good last-minute solution really can be found tomorrow morning.
Thank you, Madam Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 10 a.m.
Appointment of 8 members of the Court of Auditors
The next item is the report (A5-0090/1999) by Mrs Theato on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control on the appointment of eight members of the Court of Auditors [C5-0231/1999, C5-0232/1999, C5-0233/1999, C5-0234/1999, C5-0235/1999, C5-0236/1999, C5-0237/1999, C5-0238/1999 - 1999/0820(CNS)].
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the term of office of eight members of the European Court of Auditors will expire at the beginning of next year.
I am sorry that the Finnish Presidency of the Council is now leaving us because the Finns also wish to reappoint their present member of the Court of Auditors.
Under Article 247 paragraph 3 of the Treaty founding the European Community and other similar provisions in the ECSC and EURATOM treaties, Parliament must give its opinion on the candidates before the Council unanimously appoints or reappoints the members of the Court of Auditors for a period of six years.
The Council asked Parliament to give its opinion in a letter dated 3 November 1999, which also contained the names and curricula vitae of the candidates.
The candidates for new appointments were Mr Reynders from Belgium, Mrs Geoghegan-Quinn from Ireland, Mr Caldeira from Portugal and Mr Fabra Vallés from Spain and the candidates for reappointment were Mr Mohr from Denmark, Mr Salmi from Finland, Mr Clemente from Italy and Mr Karlsson from Sweden, in alphabetical order of the proposing countries.
As required under Article 35 of our Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Budgetary Control interviewed and questioned the proposed candidates individually on 22 and 23 November 1999 on the basis of the provisions of the Treaty which require that candidates must hold or have held or be particularly suitable for an auditing office.
Impartiality is the most important requirement.
We also based our deliberations and appraisals on the guidelines in the 1992 and 1995 parliamentary resolutions by Mr Lamassoure and Mr Bourlanges.
As a result, I am in a position to inform you that, having conducted a detailed examination, the Committee on Budgetary Control has come to the conclusion that the candidates meet the criteria for high office at the Court of Auditors and has returned a positive opinion on all eight candidates.
We particularly welcome the fact that, if Parliament gives its assent, the 15 members of the Court of Auditors will include two women.
I recall that our condition at the last appointment was that at least one of the candidates for appointment should be a woman and that Parliament would not otherwise give its assent to the appointments.
We had one woman then, and another has now joined her.
I think we are making good progress.
If plenary votes as scheduled, i.e. on Thursday, we in Parliament will have fulfilled our duty to state our opinion on time, thereby allowing a smooth changeover in the composition of the Court and ensuring that the necessary collaboration with it continues.
These are the conditions which govern the procedure.
But, looking to the future, there is more to it than that for Parliament.
On Monday we discussed the Court of Auditors' report for 1998. It highlighted a number of very important tasks which we must now tackle.
I refer mainly to the fact that the Court states quite clearly in its report, and I can only emphasise this, that we must change the spending culture.
The Court of Auditors gave some very important indicators here.
Having discussed the Budget 2000 in great detail in Parliament and paved the way so that in crisis areas, such as the Balkans, there is multiannual planning of funding, we must now gear ourselves to that perspective, instead of frittering money away on small, individual programmes and projects, which are not conducive to efficient control and where more is spent on staffing than on the objectives to be achieved.
What we want is to work in a target-orientated and not an expenditure-orientated manner.
I therefore readily agree with the Court of Auditors: we need better financial management.
Some of the Commission' s proposals as to how this should be done have now been tabled and Parliament must also give a detailed opinion on them.
We can no longer afford for large swathes of the people in the European Union to say no to Europe.
We must all work on this; we must listen to what the Court of Auditors has to say and include it in our appraisals so that we again hear a positive response from the people of Europe to what it is that joins us together.
Mr President, as the authority of the European Union increases, so too does the importance of the European Court of Auditors, which has been an independent body of the Community since the Maastricht Treaty.
However, the quality of a body or an institution stands or falls with the people who bear the responsibility in it, which is why it is particularly important that candidates with the right specialist skills who are strong and independent of character be elected as members of the Court of Auditors.
Because the task of the Court of Auditors is not always a pleasant one.
The members of the Court of Auditors must monitor careful spending of European funds and be ruthless in pointing out irregularities.
As far as spending by the European institutions is concerned, the confidence of the citizens of Europe has gradually been shaken in the past.
It is, above all, thanks to the Court of Auditors that shortcomings have been uncovered.
Now, however, we need to restore the confidence of the citizens of Europe in careful spending by the EU.
The work of the Court of Auditors and its members will therefore be even more important and difficult over the coming years than ever before.
All the challenges - enlargement, international competitiveness, sustained high unemployment - are linked to the question of funding and the remit of the Court of Auditors could change as a result.
I think that its preventative work will increase.
In my view, the eight members who were interviewed long and hard in the Committee on Budgetary Control have the qualities needed to carry out this work to the satisfaction of all concerned.
I hope that you have the courage and strength to touch unerringly on sore points in the future, should it prove necessary.
A strong Europe also needs a strong Court of Auditors.
However, I make no bones about the fact that the Court of Auditors is weakened because the proportion of women is not high enough, let alone representative.
This is a considerable fly in the ointment of the composition of the Court, even though the present candidates include a very impressive lady.
The appeal to the Member States to propose women for this job therefore stands.
It must have got out even in Europe that women too can count and they certainly have no problem in pointing out shortcomings!
Mr President, under the Treaties, Parliament has the right to be consulted on the appointment of members of the Court of Auditors.
The Committee on Budgetary Control held hearings on 22 and 23 November and adopted by secret ballot a favourable opinion on each of the candidates.
However I was disappointed, like Mrs Stauner, that we had very few members who were women.
Of the eight candidates put forward by the Council only one was a woman.
That will mean that as of next year, two of the Court's 15 members will be women, which is an improvement but still not enough.
I would therefore appeal to the Member States to put their own house in order.
I would also like to make some broader points about the composition of the Court of Auditors.
The system of appointing one member to the Court of Auditors from each Member State will have to be reformed with enlargement.
In the same way that the Commission and Parliament cannot be allowed to grow indefinitely, neither can the Court.
That will be considered at the IGC.
But in terms of the Court it is important to get away altogether from the system of appointments by nationality.
The role of the Court is to examine all Community revenue and expenditure to see whether it has been spent in a lawful and regular manner and whether financial management has been sound.
I see no reason why that role needs to be carried out by Member State appointees.
That system is simply not sustainable in such an institution.
Members of the Court should be appointed on the basis of their ability and specific skills, not on the basis of their nationality.
There is a danger that Member States' appointees may still feel some loyalty to their national capitals and may be seen as trying to water down criticisms of their own Member States.
What is needed is a court that is, and is seen to be, independent of Member States' interests.
Ultimately that should mean a system where we appoint proper, qualified auditors to the Court.
The events of the past year make it all the more important that we have a Court able to make criticisms where necessary, both of the Commission and of Member States, which, after all, are responsible for the management of about 85% of the funds.
Mr President, the Committee on Budgetary Control has passed all the candidates being discussed here.
And we do mean passed, not just automatically rubberstamped.
There have been candidates in the past that have been rejected by this House because there was some doubt as to their qualifications or impartiality.
Luckily, we have avoided such a turn of events this time even though, and I am betraying no secrets here, ex ante confidence has been placed in two of the candidates passed.
Allow me therefore to make a few basic comments on the Court of Auditors.
The Court of Auditors too is in need of urgent reform as the result of enlargement.
As Eluned Morgan has just said, the clearest way of going about this is on the basis of the number of members, as with the Commission.
At present, the Court has 15 members, traditionally one per Member State, even though the Treaty does not expressly prescribe this.
Fifteen members is five fewer than the Commission but, in the case of a relatively small institution such as the Court of Auditors, any further increase will make the Court much too top-heavy and unwieldy. That the Court is already unwieldy is clear from the overly prolonged procedure preceding the publication of its report.
This needs to be addressed at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.
I should therefore like to argue for no further increase in the number of members of the Court of Auditors and, in this case at least, for the reverse, i.e. a reduction in the number of members, to be considered.
On the other hand, I take the view that the number of auditors available to the Court needs to be increased.
In other words, to coin a phrase, fewer chiefs, more Indians!
In addition, and this is the second point which I should like to raise here, we must consider if the Court should not be allocated new tasks in connection with budgetary discipline.
The crisis in the Commission now behind us demonstrated abundantly clearly that there is no effective mechanism for calling to account EU officials guilty of serious management errors or worse.
This is mainly because the disciplinary procedure is an internal matter at the Commission, with officials sitting in judgement on other officials.
So we cannot really blame those involved for taking a very, and unfortunately even excessively, lenient and forbearing an approach to cases from the outset.
The only way out of this is to outsource these procedures to an external authority.
What we need is a budgetary discipline division and such a division could well come under the Court of Auditors. It has the necessary competence in financial matters and it has the necessary independence.
Mind you, this sort of reform would entail amending the Treaties.
However, without such reform, all the announcements being bandied about to the effect that stricter action will be taken next time will just be empty words.
Mr President, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Parliament' s responsibilities increased considerably, as it assumed new powers of codecision in the area of preventing and fighting the fraud which harms the Community' s financial interests.
The new Article 280 of the Treaty also gives the Court of Auditors new responsibilities by creating a legal body which will afford effective equivalent protection against fraud and any other illegal activity in the Member States.
Harmonisation in the area of the application of national criminal law and of the administration of justice in the Member States presupposes, necessarily, the harmonisation of legislation on fighting fraud and any other illegal activity in the Community budget.
This means that it also falls within the competence of the Court of Auditors to guarantee that the protection of the Community' s financial interests is done on the basis of a single corpus juris and is no longer done, as it has been until now on the basis of vague, disjointed and contradictory legislation, which deals with the various attacks on the Community' s financial interests according to the policy they relate to and not according to fair principles.
It is therefore time to end the narrow divisions between the Common Agricultural Policy, the Structural Funds, the Community' s own resources and the Community' s internal and external policies and to guarantee that there is one weight and one measure for all of these.
It is time to end the administrative and bureaucratic feuds and chapels and show that everyone has the same will to practice justice and rigour.
We think that this is the way to better control and manage the Community budget in an ever more efficient, balanced and impartial way.
Thank you very much, Mr Casaca.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 10 a.m.
NIS and Mongolia: economic reform and recovery (TACIS)
The next item is the report (A5-0081/1999) by Mr Valdivielso de Cué on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on the proposal for a Council regulation (Euratom, EC) [COM(1998) 753 - C4-0038/1999 - 1998/0368(CNS)] concerning the provision of assistance to economic reform and recovery in the New Independent States and Mongolia.
Mr President, the TACIS programme has dedicated its greatest efforts to supporting Mongolia, Russia and the other New Independent States in the carrying out of reforms and the political and administrative restructuring of their social and economic institutions in order to facilitate the construction of a democratic society which is based on a free market economy.
As we all know, this is an ambitious programme which will require a great economic effort on the part of the European Union, in the order of EUR 4,000 million in seven years.
Consequently, the text of the proposed regulation has taken a long time to draw up, and even then it has been judged to be unspecific and incomplete, since it does not include implementation procedures.
This has been a complex report and it has taken us time to reach an acceptable degree of consensus.
Furthermore, there is no need to stress that, on sending these funds to Russia and the New Independent States, we were not convinced that they would be administered properly.
In fact, we were rather worried about their administration and distribution.
Initially, it was the Committee on Budgets that requested greater control and rigour in the implementation of this aid programme.
Today, more than six months after those first exchanges of opinion, I think that we should be proud of the modifications made to the proposed regulation, mainly by this Committee, which increase the guarantees that these funds will be put to good use.
There was also a problem with the commitology of this programme within the old REX Committee, but, after the Council decision of 28 June 1999, to standardise the different Committees, this obstacle was overcome.
On the other hand, the discussion of the legal basis of this report has also been polemical, although in the end the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market approved it, finally defining it under Article 235, a decision which did not please many of us.
Another problem which has faced us is the fact that, until now, there have been no harmonised implementation procedures in the proposal for a regulation.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission representative when we will have harmonised procedures, which will guarantee more transparency, and efficiency, as the second report of the Independent Experts recommended.
Neither do I wish to end my speech without drawing attention to the unfortunate events in Chechnya and I therefore propose an oral amendment regarding the suspension of aid to Russia while this conflict continues.
I would like to make it clear that I do not intend to change the basis of Amendment No 39 of my report, but I do wish to adapt it to recent events, to which end we have reached agreement amongst the PSE representatives in our committee, thereby achieving greater coherence, consensus and technical quality.
The text of the amendment which we are proposing would be as follows: "In accordance with the European Parliament resolution of 18 November 1999, the conclusions of new contracts covering measures for the benefit of Russia to be funded in the context of the budget for the 2000 financial year shall be suspended, with the exception of the TACIS line for democracy, until a satisfactory solution has been found in Chechnya, in accordance with the European Union' s recommendations and on the basis of the procedure established in Article 13 of the present Regulation" .
Finally, I would like to ask the representative of the European Commission, with regard to this last point as well as to the report in general, if he is really going to take account of the recommendations made within the framework of this consultation, once they have been approved by this Parliament.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets.
(DE) Thank you Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by congratulating Mr Valdivielso de Cué on his excellent and politically balanced report on the new TACIS regulation.
I should also like to thank the Commission for their excellent cooperation in the preparation of this report.
TACIS is an important political instrument of the European Community, not only in Russia but in all the republics of the former Soviet Union, with the exception of the Baltic States and Mongolia.
The philosophy that funds should be used more for the benefit of both sides has finally permeated through to TACIS.
This means that we should shift from demand-driven payments by partner countries to the deployment of funds by both sides.
This deployment will, in my opinion, prove to be much more effective and we in Parliament should also make sure in future that the European side can influence the deployment of funds.
This will give the entire programme the flexibility which it has been lacking hitherto and help to prevent funds being misplaced.
In past years I and many of my colleagues who are active in Eastern Europe have noted that EU budget appropriations for TACIS are not always used as efficiently as they might be.
I do not want to dwell here on our tiresome experiences with hundreds of studies.
This has been due in part to limitations in the regulation itself and to problems in the management area.
The most significant shortcomings in this area have, in my view, been reduced in the new proposed regulation; more importantly, concentrating on two rather than 12 priorities per partner country as in the past will show a greater degree of professionalism and improve visibility.
New provisions on potential investments are geared to the development of either the embryonic or non-existent SME sector.
SMEs form the backbone of the economy in a modern economic system, which is why I have tabled the idea in a proposed amendment that we gear investments to the capacity of the partner country in question, rather than capping them at 25% of the total volume.
I also feel that visibility and hence the widespread impact of our programmes is a problem which we in the EU need to address in areas other than TACIS.
We could learn a lesson from the USA here.
The new TACIS regulation allows us, as did the first regulation, to use appropriations for humanitarian purposes in crisis situations.
That this flexibility is extremely important is demonstrated by the fact that, on the one hand, the EU wants to stop certain TACIS projects in Russia, as decided in Helsinki while, on the other hand, humanitarian aid is urgently needed.
Mr Valdivielso de Cué, I hope that I have misunderstood only as the result of misinterpretation; I consider it imperative that the TACIS Democracy Project should continue, especially in Russia, and that that we should choose the areas in which we really need to stop TACIS.
We did this in the case of Belarus and we should do the same in Russia.
Mr President, this speech is unexpected and comes as a result of non-attendance. I did not have time to write it down, and so I will speak without a text, although it is a subject I know something about.
We are all wondering today what to expect of Russia after this crisis. Wars always end, and I imagine this one will end when the Russian presidential elections are over, at the latest.
But, ladies and gentlemen, the question of whether Russia will cooperate with us in the future, and what form that cooperation will take, will depend on the skills we demonstrate today.
If we chose a policy of humiliation, the outcome may be a bad one, and dangerous too.
The TACIS programme is good in the sense that it is practical and gets close to the ordinary citizen.
I would like to make a few important points.
Firstly, it is important that Russia holds the elections in five days' time.
Secondly, we must continue with the sort of cooperation that aids the development in Russia of democracy and civil society.
That is important both for the Russians and for ourselves.
Thirdly, in my opinion, aid should be allocated more precisely than at present - so that it reaches the ordinary people, the impoverished Russians, rather than Moscow.
Fourthly, we should establish a massive, long-range project within the framework of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to create smaller projects to cover a timeframe of 20 years.
By then - irrespective of who is leading Russia or the European Union - we will need Russian resources. The first of these is Russian gas, as Norwegian gas will run out.
In addition to gas, Russia has, for example, the world' s largest forest and mineral resources.
We must take the development of the infrastructure and the environment into consideration.
We should implement projects which look to the future in this area and which will carry us through this present crisis.
Mr President, I wish to make two relatively brief points.
Firstly, a request addressed to the Commission.
I spent some hapless years working as a junior official in the TACIS programme some years ago.
What I experienced, as I tried to interest everything from local transport authorities in Kishinev through to energy ministries in Uzbekistan was the following: just as in so many other EU policy areas, in TACIS projects we perhaps try to do too much across too many geographical boundaries in too many sectors.
I think we are all aware of this danger of the dispersal of EU assistance in far-flung places.
Could I make a plea that when this regulation comes into place the many loopholes which still remain in the regulation and which would allow a continued proliferation of small and excessively multiplied projects are closed and that a real, and perhaps in some cases ruthless, concentration of implementing projects is enforced.
On the second point I address the rapporteur.
It concerns the political issue of the partial suspension of at least the TACIS programme under the budget year 2000.
I am glad to hear that the rapporteur has very much moved towards the amendment which the ELDR group tabled.
Many of us are instinctively still not convinced that any form of suspension is the right way to respond to present circumstances but nevertheless that seems to be the drift of debate.
In those circumstances, I would suggest that we at least make our words on the partial suspension of the TACIS programme under the budget year 2000 entirely compatible with what was decided in Helsinki, mainly and most particularly, that if we are going to save the democracy budget line we should also equally save the budget line which applies to nuclear safety projects.
We are grateful to Mr Valdivielso de Cué for the work carried out in this report.
However, we decided to table a number of amendments, some of which were accepted by the Commission. At this point I should like to stress the points which we would like to have accepted but which have not been incorporated for the moment.
First, we agree fully with Amendment No 51, tabled by Mr Krehl on behalf of the Liberals which, in view of the war which the Russians are waging on Chechnya, seeks to grant aid only for democracy and social development.
Secondly, insofar as we are allocating appropriations for the restoration of nuclear power stations, we would like them to be conditional upon the closure or replacement of these power stations, as we do not wish their lifetime to be extended.
Consequently, we have tabled Amendment No 48, the wording of which, as set out here, has been accepted by the Liberals.
Thirdly, we wish to support integrated projects with environmental implications which are on a more modest scale than national projects and which retain a local or regional dimension, so that the appropriations granted can be better controlled.
Finally, we consider that earmarking 25% of appropriations for investment is excessive and we would like to see this capped at 2% for investments in pilot projects, with a larger percentage going to projects of an experimental nature.
We trust that you will give these proposals your due consideration.
I would like to thank my friend and the rapporteur, Mr Valdivielso de Cué, for the wonderful job he has made of mediating and reconciling the various yet justifiable interpretations of the validity of the new instrument for economic cooperation with the New Independent States and Mongolia.
It was a difficult job but the competence and tenacity of the rapporteur means that we can approve this measure.
The new financial programme for the development of the New Independent States and Mongolia that is replacing TACIS is bringing in mechanisms that are more precise than the previous ones.
Partnership and competition between the partner States in gaining funding encourage them to play an active role and they aim to enhance existing professionalism and therefore to create a ruling class which will be based on meritocracy.
The need to continuously monitor the implementation of the plans, as laid down in the document, protects the European Union from the blatant attempts at fraud noted in the past, and aims to put in place obvious and thus verifiable initiatives.
The choice to undertake visible interventions complies with the condition of emphasising the positive role of the European Union with regard to the wreckage left by communism ten years ago, and puts to the test the effectiveness of the western democratic method with regard to the failed dirigisme of the past.
It will be necessary, as anticipated, to carefully consider interventions in the civil, economic and social areas of the various New Independent States and Mongolia using two parameters: the solution of the issue of humanitarian intervention and social and economic marginalisation, without privileges and ranking, and the assessment of strategic civil, economic and social value with the aim of bringing the peoples of the new Independent States and Mongolia closer to the European Union.
Therefore, we need to proceed with the interventions in order to create a security framework between, on the one side, the new Independent States, and on the other, the European Union, so that we can establish ever greater peace and stability.
An essential demand that the European Union must make is that the new Independent States respect human rights, so that democratic principles and cultural, religious, political and ethnic pluralism will increasingly take root, in order to improve people' s quality of life.
The possibility of suspending the intervention in the unhappy event of a crisis occurring is certainly a strong deterrent which will lead the new States and Mongolia to seek a negotiated solution to disputes, thereby turning them into everyday political dialectics.
The European Parliament should debate and approve the new instrument that is replacing the TACIS programme, even if currently Russia, the largest of the new States, is the focus of a just European Parliament initiative that has suspended the technological cooperation agreement following the war begun against Chechnya.
But the Russia question is not solely about this: it is a large country experiencing an extremely serious political, economic and social crisis and it is preparing for presidential elections.
It is a large country undergoing a difficult transition and, in my opinion, it should not be left to its fate nor should it be isolated in punitive terms; instead, it should be helped and reassured by means of a close political and economic relationship, even if the political relationship is dialectic and the economic relationship is competitive.
Russia needs a lot of help from the European Union, based on caution, encouragement and when necessary, objections, but without the possibility of breaking off relations, which we actually need to intensify, in areas such as the creation of a new legal-administrative system which will do away with any temptation to behave improperly.
It is up to us to create the conditions for peace, cooperation, support, aid and partnership, and we must put the onus on the New Independent States, Mongolia, and above all, Russia, to make sure they deserve our help, by complying with the objective conditions of defending the fundamental principles of citizens and governed communities.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should first of all like to say to Mr Paasilinna that he perhaps ought always to speak without a script.
It would then be easier for the interpreters, because he talks at such high speed when he has a script.
I want to say that it is with great humility that I am taking part in this debate because I believe that there are few people who know what is right in this matter.
We may feel extremely brave when we are about to cut off aid. At the same time, we must recognise, however, although we do not say it straight out as the Council does, that there are many in Russia who want us to stop providing the TACIS aid.
We are perhaps turning our backs on this section of the Russian population, upon those who might need us now, something which illustrates just how blunt a weapon sanctions are in general.
I therefore think it is extremely important that we adopt the compromise amendment which was indicated by Mr Clegg and which means that we can help with a development which begins from below and works its way upwards.
The need to help young people in the future is also emphasised in one of the amendments and, in the longer term, this is the only right thing to do.
We must teach young people who do not know what is meant by a market economy and who cannot in any case know anything about the matter because they do not have any books about it.
The opportunity must be there of learning.
We cannot go in there and just apply US economic models, but I am very clear on this point about helping young people and promoting a better future.
Mr President, because of the events in Chechnya, we have to push for a political decision, but that should not be, in my opinion, at the expense of the TACIS programme.
Putting it on ice or reducing it in some way will hit ordinary Russians and our most important partners in cooperation.
Russian cooperation has to be seen in the longer term.
Russia must not be isolated, nor must it be allowed to cut itself off either.
Through cooperation we must help social conditions to become established in Russia and democracy to gain strength.
The flaws that became visible when the earlier programmes were being implemented have to be corrected.
Now projects have all too often been left half-finished.
There have been few practical results, and the greatest benefits have been reaped by western consultants and local middlemen.
A lack of coordination in the Interreg programmes has also meant poorer results.
We have to choose who we help, through these projects, more carefully and become more effective when implementing projects on a practical level.
Our local partners in cooperation must also be called on to commit to closer cooperation, and the commitments have to be kept on both sides.
The purpose of this debate is to enable Parliament to give its opinion on the new TACIS regulation, and I will respond to the issues that honourable Members have raised on the regulation in a moment - both the points they have raised in this debate and the points they have raised in amendments.
It is inevitable that this evening our minds should be focused on Russia and that our thoughts should be with the people of Grozny as they spend a further night under threat of bombardment.
It is inevitable that Chechnya looms large over this debate.
When I last addressed this House on 17 November, just before the Istanbul Summit of the OSCE, I said that European Union relations with Russia were under very considerable strain.
That strain has grown steadily in subsequent weeks, to the point where the Helsinki European Council decided that it had to take action.
The declaration adopted last weekend could not send a clearer message.
We understand and support Russia's concern about terrorism and about its territorial integrity.
There is no question of that whatsoever.
There never has been. But that does not justify recent or present action.
We condemn Russia's disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force against the Chechen population.
We condemn its failure to abide by international humanitarian law.
We condemn the lack of cooperation with international humanitarian operators; and we condemn as well the lack of a meaningful dialogue with elected Chechen leaders and the unwillingness to countenance external mediation, for example, through the OSCE.
The Commission is now setting about putting into practice the European Council's operational conclusions with the presidency and with the Member States.
First we will work with the Council to review the implementation of the common strategy for Russia.
Second, we have been asked to draw up proposals to suspend some parts of the partnership and cooperation agreement. We are doing this.
At the same time we have been asked to adopt a zero-tolerance strategy on breaches of existing trade agreements, like the steel agreement, with Russia.
To Mr Paasilinna I would just point out that while we are concerned about these issues it is worth noting that Russia exports about 40% of its total exports to the European Union; that the European Union exports about 3% of its total to Russia; and that Russia has a EUR 10 billion trade surplus with the European Union.
Thirdly - and this brings me closer to the subject of today's debate - we need to review our technical assistance to Russia.
I hope that Mr Valdivielso de Cué, Mr Clegg and Mr Piétrasanta will sympathise with the argument which I am now going to develop for a moment.
The European Council has invited the budgetary authority to consider using some of the 2000 TACIS budget for Russia for additional humanitarian assistance.
In a general sense this could mean redirecting funds from traditional technical assistance to the immediate needs of the population of Chechnya, including an element of reconstruction.
The prior condition is to ensure that the necessary security conditions are in place for international aid agencies to ensure effective delivery.
The European Council has decided that new commitments should be strictly limited to areas that have a direct interest for the European Union and do not directly support the Russian Government, including human rights, the rule of law, civil society and nuclear safety.
In all, this could reduce TACIS support for the Russia programme by two-thirds, down from about EUR 120 million to about EUR 40 million.
It is with no pleasure at all that I set out this list of measures.
Indeed, as I said when I last addressed Parliament, they will also have negative consequences for the European Union - a point which two speakers suggested late in this debate.
I would much prefer it to be otherwise.
I hope that the conditions will soon be in place for our relations with Russia to return to a more normal footing.
That is my very strong, committed view.
But that cannot happen unless the Russians heed the European Council's message.
The onslaught on the civilian population of Grozny must cease.
The military action must be replaced by political dialogue and the conditions for safe delivery of humanitarian assistance must be assured.
Russian policy must change.
We can make our displeasure known and our pressure felt by applying firmly the economic, financial and political measures I have just outlined.
But in doing so let us remember, as Mrs Krehl said and as I said at the outset, that TACIS is not only about Russia but about a much wider region.
The regulation before Parliament will benefit 13 countries with a combined population of about 300 million.
It would surely be wrong, in our effort to make Russia recognise that there is an inevitable price to pay for its behaviour, to end up penalising the many other countries that depend on TACIS and with whom we have no quarrel at all.
That is why I hope that Parliament will deliver a positive opinion on this new regulation.
Let me respond to some of the points which have been made, some of which have emerged in this debate and some of which emerged in the earlier discussions.
The new regulation is designed to be flexible; it is designed to respond to changing circumstances.
It embodies, I hope, some of the key lessons learnt in recent years.
These include views from Members of this Parliament.
Your input has proved extremely valuable in helping us to frame the new regulation.
I am pleased that you recognise the innovations included in the new programme such as links with the partnership and cooperation agreements, regional differentiation, concentration, a point made with the benefit of experience - concentration, as Mr Clegg said, on a restricted number of cross-sectoral themes - wider use of investment financing and an incentive scheme aimed at improving the quality of projects through a competitive mechanism.
A particularly important aspect is greater emphasis on dialogue with the national authorities in beneficiary countries to ensure that national programmes more accurately reflect our mutual interest.
Discussions in the Council have been progressing well.
Many issues including tendering and contracting procedures have been debated at length.
We note your proposal with which the Council agrees but existing procedures should be rolled over until new harmonised procedures are adopted.
The Commission can agree to this, I have to say somewhat reluctantly, as the only practical way to have the regulation adopted in good time.
However, given the generally acknowledged need to simplify and harmonise procedures across the board we hope that this transitional arrangement can be kept short.
The Commission will soon be tabling proposals to amend the external assistance chapter of the financial regulation to give legal backing to key parts of the new harmonised procedures.
At this hour - though from my experience as a Member of the House of Commons in Britain a few years ago this would be regarded as fairly early in the day - I do not think that honourable Members would want me to go through absolutely every point that was made in the earlier discussions on the regulation.
But perhaps I can single out one or two particularly important points.
A number of Members have suggested that the proposed ceilings for investment projects and the new incentive scheme and the regulation interfere with the prerogatives of the budgetary authority.
That certainly is not the intention.
We fully recognise the role of the budgetary authority.
However, the proposed ceilings are intended to provide flexibility to develop actions in these areas while retaining the primary focus of TACIS on structured cooperation and technical assistance to the countries involved.
We know the key role of NGOs has caused concern to many honourable Members.
We have to recognise that the capacity of NGOs in the region is not yet as well developed as any of us would wish.
It is therefore unrealistic to imagine their taking on much greater responsibilities at this stage.
In many countries there is not even a legal basis for their establishment.
The priority today should therefore be to help countries develop the necessary regulatory framework.
NGOs in TACIS countries will, of course, continue to be eligible to submit appropriate projects for funding under the European initiative for democracy and human rights.
I strongly agree that delegating responsibility for project management to the field can make our assistance more responsive and therefore more effective.
However, the precondition for a bigger role for European Union delegations is ensuring that they have the necessary staff and the other resources to take on these new responsibilities.
This is something we need to look into in the context of the review of external aid management I announced earlier today.
At the same time we must avoid taking risks in delegating responsibilities to beneficiary countries whose authorities may not be equipped to handle them.
This is probably the case with all TACIS partner countries at present.
I would like to express my gratitude to Parliament for this debate.
The Commission agrees with many of the ideas underlying the amendments that Parliament has put forward and these will be reflected in the text.
Reasons of pure form prevent me from accepting the specific wording advanced in many cases, but the Commission can fully agree with Amendments Nos 4, 5, 8, 22 and 32 as well as parts of Amendments Nos 1, 14 and 19.
I should like to make one last point.
Listening to the speeches this evening, realise that most Members of Parliament, like me, believe it is a historic responsibility for us at the end of this century and the beginning of the next to try to avoid the mistakes which have disfigured Europe's relationship with Russia during this century, to try to develop a strategic relationship and partnership with Russia that will draw Russia into the European family.
That depends on both sides moving.
It is very much a two-way street.
It has been a matter of considerable regret and more to many of us that Russian behaviour in the last few weeks and months in Chechnya has stretched and strained our attempts to create that sort of relationship almost to breaking point.
I very much hope that the decisions taken at the Council and the speeches made in this Parliament today will help to convince Russia that what it has been doing in the northern Caucasus is not sensible, is in breach of the undertakings it has given both to us and to the international community about its behaviour, and is well below what one would expect of a great and civilised nation.
I hope that we can look in the future to a relationship with Russia which allows normal business to be resumed.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Mrs Thors, a supplementary question, but please be brief.
I noted with regret that the Commissioner did not support Amendment No 7.
Yet we know that this is also a kind of obligation for the Union under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that you should be able to report what you are doing in favour of children.
Secondly, I was also very concerned that you did not really propose much support for the NGOs, and this is exactly what many people working with democracy projects say, that they go to the budget line for democracy and human rights instead of being streamlined into other projects.
Madam, you have taken advantage of my generosity.
That was not a supplementary question. You tried to take the floor again.
May I say, that is not quite in order.
Commissioner, allow me to make a personal comment.
You referred to the House of Commons.
Permit me to say that experience in the House of Commons cannot always be transferred wholesale to the European Parliament.
My experience after 20 years' membership of this House has taught me that, in the long run, the popularity of a speaker at the end of an all-night sitting increases in inverse proportion to the length of his contribution to the debate.
That does not, of course, in any way restrict the Commission' s right under the Rules of Procedure to speak for as long as it likes!
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m.
Technical regulations for wheeled vehicles
The next item is the recommendation (A5-0079/1999) by Mr Bodrato on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on the proposal for a Council decision [10167/1999 - COM(1999) 27 - C5-0073/1999 - 1999/0011(AVC)] concerning the conclusion of the agreement concerning the establishing of global technical regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles ( "Parallel Agreement" ).
Mr President, this recommendation invites Parliament to express an opinion in keeping with the Council proposal on technical harmonisation in the automobile sector, by considering it to be an important factor in the development of the global market.
The process of harmonisation aims to attain the highest levels of safety and environmental protection and is an important stimulus for quality, with advantages both for industry and for consumers.
This recommendation originates from the agreement, concluded in 1958 within the framework of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
This agreement was then broadly amended, and it was extended to States outside the Union.
The European Community has thus become part of an amended agreement which now includes Japan.
Nevertheless, because of a different certification system, but also for procedural reasons, the United States could not adopt a similar decision.
A Parallel Agreement was negotiated to overcome this difficulty, which allows harmonised technical regulations to be adopted, but only unanimously and without the contracting parties being obliged to mutually recognise certificates and permits.
In this way, the European Community has taken on an important intermediate function, insofar as it is a contracting party of both of these agreements.
The rules laid down by the Parallel Agreement coincide with those in the UNECE agreement, but a specific decision-making procedure is anticipated when a draft regulation is not considered within the framework of the 1958 agreement.
In any case, in order to include technical regulations in Community legislation it is still necessary to have a corresponding Commission directive that is adopted by Parliament under the codecision procedure.
Parliament' s role is thereby guaranteed and it is anticipated that the Commission will provide Parliament with the draft regulations it wants to implement on a global scale.
I will conclude by pointing out that an opinion in keeping with this recommendation would put the European Community in a position to fully support the Parallel Agreement, and confirm its position as a leader in the harmonisation and policies of expanding the markets.
I would like to warmly welcome Mr Bodrato's report and the very clear presentation he gave.
This is an important step that matches the regulatory regime with the realities of a global car industry.
I just want to insert a word of caution.
Europe has to negotiate from a position of strength in this global regime.
In the United States the market is moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the world.
American consumers are in love with larger, heavier and more thirsty vehicles.
The European model of lighter, economical cars is becoming more and more significant in the rest of the world apart from the United States.
We have to make sure that global regulation does not compromise Europe's market strength in the type of vehicles that most world consumers want to buy.
I would like to take the opportunity to raise another issue about the global competitive environment in the car industry apart from regulation.
The reality of today's industry is that every operation - every factory - has to compete for long-term investment globally.
In Eastern Europe, in South America, in the United States, aids are being given to encourage local investment.
In that context, I particularly want to ask Mr Liikanen tonight to take up the question of the uncertainty facing thousands of my constituents who work at the BMW-Rover factory at Longbridge in Birmingham, where major investment is planned to produce new small cars for the global market.
I declare with pride a personal interest in this, because I began my career in the car industry 32 years ago working at that factory.
We heard last week that a decision from the Commission on an aid package from the British Government which responds to that need for the plant to be global has been delayed yet again, and that this delay is affecting consumer confidence and the future of the plant.
So in asking you, Mr Liikanen, if you can get that quickly resolved with your colleague Mr Monti, can I also ask the Commission to set up a fast and fair mechanism to deal with these future issues; because until we have that, Europe's global car industry's competitiveness will be affected and we will not be able to take full advantage of the regime that Mr Bodrato proposed.
Mr President, Commissioner, a few comments on the Parallel Agreement.
The assumption that we need to agree on common standards in the face of a globalised economy and globalised environmental protection requirements is correct.
However, and this is perhaps a requirement of this agreement, we need to start from a common political philosophy rather than taking an approach whereby management experts agree on standards beyond politics.
We held a symposium here two weeks ago with American members of Congress at which precisely this question was discussed, namely the development of a common philosophy for harmonising technical standards based on economic and ecological requirements.
As with music, harmony here does not necessarily mean that everyone is singing exactly the same note, but that the overall effect is harmonious.
And, in this respect, harmony also means taking account of the different requirements in the USA and in Europe.
And this has to happen at the political and not just the technical level.
The second requirement is this: we are concluding an agreement which is not in fact necessary because, in theory, everything can be regulated under the 1958 agreement.
An additional agreement is being concluded here merely to accommodate specific interests on the other side of the Atlantic, one which may lead, inter alia, to delays in the process of establishing common standards, for example, because unanimity is required here.
And that begs the question of whether we are paying too much attention to the requirements of a specific country
The third point concerns us very closely. In discussions on accession to the 1958 agreement, we had intense discussions in the Kittelmann report on the extent to which Parliament' s joint political rights, to be specific, its right of codecision, was called into question.
This is, of course, exacerbated by this Parallel Agreement, because the mechanism is taken yet another step away from us, the European Parliament.
Commissioner, your predecessor, Mr Bangemann, assured us at the time that we would be regularly informed about discussions in relation to the 1958 agreement and included in decisions.
So far this process has yet to get off the ground.
I invite you to state clearly how Parliament can be involved in the decision-making process, what can be done to ensure that we are involved in time, what can be done to ensure that there is continuity in reporting, for example by having standing rapporteurs or by having small specialist groups, and how the Commission and Parliament can jointly set themselves the objective of monitoring the 1958 agreement.
In other words, how will the Commission ensure that Parliament' s right of codecision will not be circumvented by this agreement?
. I am pleased to note that the European Parliament has proceeded speedily with the examination of the Community's accession to the parallel agreement and seems prepared to give its assent today.
This will contribute decisively to an enhanced competitiveness of our automotive industry on a global stage while ensuring higher safety and environmental requirements for the benefit of consumers.
In response to the question from Mr Harbour, I would say, as you know, that this concerns state aid schemes which belong to the competence of Mr Monti.
I will inform him of the issues you took up here.
And to Mr Lange: as you know, every new piece of Community legislation to be adopted through the Geneva process must be approved by Parliament, either through assent under the 1958 Agreement or codecision, the Parallel agreement.
I am open to any discussion where you have interests to follow up.
I hope we will find a way to talk informally or in committee later on the proper formula.
Thank you, Commissioner.
One can see that you have been acquainted with this House for quite some time.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m.
(The sitting was closed at 11.35 p.m.)
Statement by the President
I would like to notify you that this morning a suspect package was found near the Louise Weiss Building and that the French police, in collaboration with our security services, denied access to the building and carried out a test which, fortunately, proved to be negative.
Those of us who were in the building before 8 o'clock were very much aware that there was a suspect package in the courtyard of the Louise Weiss Building which was the cause of a bomb scare.
Quite rightly, access to certain parts of the building was denied and Members and staff were evacuated from one part to another.
I do not know whether this was a fiendish attempt by my Italian friend Mr Dell'Alba to move us from Strasbourg, whether it was my UK Conservative colleagues who had mistaken the day of President Chirac's visit, or whether it was a Christmas gift of Belgian chocolates now sticking to the walls of the courtyard.
But, whatever the case, there was a lot of confusion and an evident lack of knowledge of the procedures for the evacuation of this building.
I should like to ask whether a note could be circulated to Members and staff outlining normal evacuation procedures and whether, in the case of an event like this, the screens which are dotted all around the building could be used to give Members information on what is going on.
Mr Watson, I think that your request is not only justifiable but sacrosanct and we must ask our services to organise a drill as soon as possible, as soon as we are all here for a plenary sitting.
Hopefully, we need only wait two or three months for the temperature and weather to allow us to carry out this drill in the best possible way.
I would also like to inform you that what was found was not an item belonging to Mr Dell' Alba or his friends, but is definitely a piece of equipment belonging to a photographer.
This was revealed after it was found. However, when it was first discovered, there was some uncertainty and therefore they had to take this unusual step.
Mr Rübig, I think that your request should be carefully considered by our Quaestors so that they can propose measures to the President' s Office and to the Conference of Presidents, if necessary.
Mr President, you are quite right.
The College of Quaestors is due to meet this afternoon and a note on the procedures for evacuating the building will be sent to all Members before the next part-session.
Thank you, Mr Poos.
Your remark has given an indirect reply to Mr Watson and Mr Rübig.
Welcome
Mr President, I have asked to speak because you have already turned your attention to the agenda.
I thought that you would make an announcement about the members of the convention working on the Charter of Citizens' Rights.
I had asked for the names of the Members of Parliament appointed by the Conference of Presidents to be officially announced to Parliament.
I was assured that the President in the chair this morning would make this announcement and that the names of the Members of the European Parliament who are members and deputy members of the convention would be included in today' s minutes.
I am therefore somewhat taken aback to learn that you have not received this list of names so that you could announce them to the House.
An official public announcement of the Members of the European Parliament appointed to the convention must be made because the convention will officially start work on Friday.
Please ensure that an official announcement is made.
Mr Poettering, I will be able to read you the communication as soon as I receive it.
You have been informed before me; however, as soon as I have the communication, I will, of course, make you and all the Members in the House aware of it.
Climate change
The next item is the statements of the Council and the Commission on the results of the fifth Conference of the members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
I invite Minister Hassi, representative of the Council, to take the floor.
Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, a policy on climate issues has been one of the main environmental concerns of the Finnish Presidency.
I think it is important to bear in mind that a policy on climate issues will, I imagine, be one of the greatest challenges for the entire planet and all mankind in the next century.
The European Parliament is quite right when it states in its resolution that the commitments that have been made up till now are still not sufficient to limit the rise in temperature to one and a half degrees a century: we need new commitments in addition to the present ones.
Nonetheless, it will be a hard job to realise the present commitments.
Preparing for the COP 5 Conference in Bonn was an important issue for Finland.
Generally speaking, the Union has also been satisfied with the results of COP 5.
Progress was made in a good number of areas.
In addition, an action programme was agreed on, which I believe will enable us to make the necessary decisions at the sixth conference (COP 6) of the parties to the agreement on climate, which is to be held next autumn in the Hague, to make the process of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol possible.
At Community level, Finland has worked to integrate climate policy with other areas of policy by drafting, for example, environmental strategies in the areas of energy, transport and agriculture.
We must remember that these strategies are only the first step in what will hopefully become an on-going process of implementing and developing climate strategies.
One of the most important decisions reached during the autumn was the commitment made at the Helsinki Summit by the Community and the Member States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol before the Rio+10 Conference, which is to be held in 2002, and that the Community should do everything required to make ratification possible.
Finland has also been involved in a wide-ranging dialogue with NGOs and representatives of business.
In our opinion, multilateral commitment to a policy on climate will, in the long term, guarantee optimum results.
Although I said that the decisions that have already been taken will enable us to achieve the results we need at the sixth conference of the parties to the agreement on climate to be held next autumn, there is still much work to be done.
It is particularly important for the Union to build bridges with developing countries and try and find solutions that they also regard as fair: win-win solutions in which both development and the environment are winners.
Important issues for developing countries include how to create facilities to make it possible for them to report on levels of emissions, the development of their facilities in general and technology transfer.
In this we have to pay special attention to the poorest countries of all.
We still have much work to do, furthermore, to develop the rules of the Kyoto mechanisms.
Important questions include how natural depressions and hollows relate to the Kyoto mechanisms and the so-called flexible ceiling, which the European Union has proposed.
Next year, the EU must do all it can to find solutions that are as effective as possible for the environment and the reduction in emissions and which can be widely adopted so that an agreement on the rules for the Kyoto mechanisms and the rules on compliance with that agreement can be reached.
I consider one fundamental issue to be the fact that nuclear power cannot be accepted as a method to be applied in the CDM and Joint Implementation projects.
The Ministers for the Environment that convened at COP 5 had very strong opinions on this, but it is obviously going to be an especially challenging task to arrest the trend in the Community' s own greenhouse gas emissions, which is rising at present, when it ought to be falling.
We still need new measures throughout the Community and the Member States.
For example, bringing in an environment tax would be a major achievement.
The suggestions of the Council for an action programme and the proposal under consideration to develop a system for emissions trading within the Community are steps in the right direction.
Thank you, Mrs Hassi.
I now invite Mrs Wallström, a member of the Commission, to take the floor.
Thank you for inviting me to give the Commission's assessment of the results of the Bonn Conference on Climate Change.
One year ago the parties to the Convention on Climate Change decided on a two-year work programme, the Buenos Aires plan of action.
It should lead to decisions on the outstanding issues under the Kyoto Protocol by COP 6, which will take place one year from now in The Hague.
In this context the expectations for Bonn concentrated on the need to make substantial technical progress.
It was clear from the outset that the major political decisions would have to wait for COP 6.
I believe such progress has been achieved.
The aspect of COP 5 of greatest political importance was Chancellor Schroeder's call for entry into force of the Protocol by the year 2002.
I am very pleased that the European Union, along with many other parties, expressed its support for that idea.
This means that a clear timetable is now set which increases the pressure on all parties to make COP 6 a success.
I urge all parties to ensure that they are able to launch the ratification process immediately after COP 6.
In this context, the decision of the parties in Bonn to speed up the process during the coming years was important.
Allow me to comment on some of the issues that were discussed in Bonn.
The most important unresolved issues under the Kyoto Protocol are the rules and modalities for the Kyoto mechanisms and the design of a comprehensive compliant system.
The Kyoto mechanisms - emissions trading, joint implementation and the clean development mechanism - are a part of the Protocol.
It is generally recognised that they have the potential to make climate action more cost efficient.
Of course, it is vital that such a system is complemented by a strictly compliant system including provisions for cases of non-compliance.
In view of the difficult international negotiation process, it was quite a success that, on the Kyoto mechanisms and on compliance, we succeeded in getting de facto draft negotiating texts.
These will continue to constitute the basis for further negotiation in the coming months.
Without this achievement, the prospects of reaching decisions at COP 6 would have been bleak.
Good progress has also been made on issues such as capacity building, technology transfer and adaptation to the effects of climate change.
The meeting highlighted once again how important it is to make equal progress on issues of importance to the industrialised world as much as to the developing countries.
That is why we need a balanced process between issues relating to the Kyoto Protocol and issues relating to the underlying Climate Change Convention.
We have to keep in mind that COP 6 can be successful only if we can deliver significant results on both issues, building a bridge between the industrialised and developing countries.
Another success was the continuation of the so-called activities implemented jointly.
These projects financed by industrial countries cannot but enhance capacity building and technology transfer in developing countries and economies in transition.
This brings me to a very important matter that Parliament has also raised in a resolution, namely the question of nuclear energy as an option for clean development mechanism projects.
I am of the opinion that the environmental and safety problems surrounding nuclear energy are too important to encourage its proliferation in developing countries under the header of the clean development mechanism.
There are excellent alternatives such as renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures that fit much better with the purpose of the CDM to promote sustainable development.
Let me turn to some of the other divergence issues.
The EU proposal for a concrete ceiling on the use of the Kyoto mechanisms has not been addressed formally at COP 5 but was very much the subject of discussion in the corridors.
The intentions underlying the proposals stand as firm as ever, guaranteeing that every party achieves at least a substantial part of its emissions target at home instead of relying heavily on the Kyoto mechanisms.
This should allow the first behavioural and technological changes with a view to preparing for the much more ambitious emission cuts of the future.
In addition, the Kyoto targets must be achieved through real emission reductions and not by buying other countries' quotas that have become over-generous due to economic decline - the famous hot air.
Hence the need to limit the amount of its quota of emissions that a party can sell.
A decision on how to ensure this environmental soundness must be taken at COP 6 as part of the overall package of decisions and the Community's position on the ceilings issue has not changed.
Another important feature at COP 5 concerned the voluntary commitments of developing countries and it is commendable that developing countries such as Argentina and Kazakhstan are taking the initiative to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.
In view of their economic growth prospects their involvement in international climate change action is of the utmost importance.
However, it is crucial that we get the process right.
We must avoid inflation of the environmental permits available in the Kyoto mechanisms as this would work against real emission reductions.
I hope to come back to you in a year or so to report positive results from COP 6.
In the meantime the Commission will continue not only its active role in the negotiations but also its work on Community measures.
Under the climate change action programme, which I announced in this House in October, the Commission's work is currently focusing on the establishment of a list of priority measures in the area of climate change to be presented to the Environment Council in March.
I am also working hard to have a Green Paper on emissions trading within the European Community adopted by the Commission in March.
It will allow a wide debate of all stakeholders on an approach which should further reduce the costs to our economies of reducing greenhouse gases.
A tremendous amount of technical and political work still lies ahead of us in putting the Kyoto Protocol into effect as a first step in fighting global warming.
I appreciate your commitment to help in conveying the importance of combating climate change throughout Europe and to your counterparts in other countries, in particular the United States Congress.
Mr President, Representative of the Council Hassi and Commissioner, I believe that most of us were very pleased indeed when, as early as at the hearings of the Commissioners, we learned that one of Commissioner Wallström' s priority areas was work to combat climate change.
I believe that this is an environmental issue of a kind to which the majority of citizens and the broad general public can also feel committed because people do in fact feel real anxiety faced with the climate changes that are under way.
All the environmental disasters that we have witnessed make us reflect more often upon the world we are living in, and also upon our own influence on it.
The problem is scarcely one of people' s not being aware of climate change. What is in fact missing, however, is the concrete implementation of measures to combat this.
We are constantly knocked off course whenever we try to move on in our discussions.
Many are the conferences in which the world' s leaders have convened in order to find a common strategy, but so far relatively few concrete measures have been taken.
This is not perhaps so odd after all, because climate change is not, of course, the only issue in the world which needs to be solved.
Famine, poverty and injustice in the way in which burdens are distributed remain acute problems in many parts of the world.
In other parts - the richer part of the world, our own part of it - we ourselves find it hard to give up our well-being in order to get to grips with the problems.
These become ever more complex, and decisions are conspicuous by their absence.
Just as Mr Liese said, we were not perhaps expecting too much progress at the latest COP Conference in Bonn, but it would still of course have been desirable for the EU, the United States and everyone else to have achieved a more constructive result than was actually achieved. This is also why we are tabling this resolution, by means of which we want to speed up developments.
We are convinced that more must happen more quickly, both in the individual Member States of the European Union, but also of course worldwide.
In the future, we also want to be an instigative force within the Union in order to ensure that more in fact happens. We therefore support the wish expressed by the European Union to the effect that the Protocol should come into force by the year 2002.
We also consider that, even if the decision to ratify the Protocol is a long time coming in certain countries, this should not prevent us from seriously considering the possibility of ratifying the Protocol alongside those who have made up their minds anyway.
We may possibly be in danger of leaving behind someone who does not dare to take up a definite position, but we must nevertheless try to go forwards.
In this regard, I should like, nonetheless, to ask Mrs Wallström and Mrs Hassi, who are present in the Chamber, for their opinions regarding our Amendment No 2 in which we demand that we should ratify the Protocol at the latest during COP 6.
What will this entail? Will it entail the EU as a Union ratifying the Protocol?
Or does it mean that we believe that every individual Member State will also ratify it by this date? I am pleased that Commissioner Wallström and Representative of the Council Hassi emphasised that nuclear power is not a sustainable energy source.
Mr President, Mrs Hassi, Commissioner, the issue under discussion concerns the outcome of the fifth conference on the Kyoto Protocol in Bonn.
As clearly stated in our motion for a resolution, the results of the Kyoto Protocol are unsatisfactory on several accounts.
Climate change is continuing, for which reason further strict measures for reducing greenhouse gases must be taken by 2010.
It is already seven years since the Earth Summit in Rio where firm commitments were made without any really positive consequences having resulted to date.
Regrettably, there is still a major element missing from this motion. This is the people.
We should not forget that, regardless of the measures which may be taken by individual Member States or the European Union as a whole, it is the people as consumers who, through their habits and behaviour, will promote change and impose this on decision makers.
There is therefore a real urgency for wide-ranging measures to now be adopted in order to involve the people in decision making on this subject. In this way, they will feel more responsible for the climate change phenomenon.
This could be achieved, for example, through wider information campaigns bringing pressure to bear on people' s behaviour.
Our resolution on the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in October, was clearly heading in this direction by demanding a coordinated strategy for informing the public in a clear, understandable and accessible manner.
I am thinking, for example, of certain aerosols which we use extensively in our daily life.
It is through these concrete and tangible measures that Europe will enter our homes and our habits.
Finally, I must comment on the subject of a CO2/energy tax which the motion mentions in paragraph 14.
Although I am not against the principle of taxing polluting emissions, I do believe that these measures must respect two principles. On the one hand they must try to guarantee tax neutrality and, on the other, they must cover the whole of the industrialised world, or at least the OECD, so that ecological dumping or competition distortions do not arise.
Climate change is not inevitable, yet it is only by involving the main actors - people and industry - and by making them responsible that we will overcome the obstacles.
Mr President, climate change is one of the most important environmental issues but also one of the most difficult ones to solve.
It impacts greatly upon economic processes.
The breakdown of the WTO round in Seattle has taught us that the EU should be convincing in its endeavours to achieve global environmental policy.
We need to set a good example ourselves.
So far, Europe has made fancy declarations but greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union will be in excess of 8 percent instead of under 8 percent if no additional measures are taken.
This is mainly due to the fact that the transport sector has got out of hand: more cars, more trucks and more aircraft clocking up more miles.
This is why I urge the European Commission, in the next plan of action for combating climate change, to address the most difficult issue, namely traffic.
For example, zero emissions for traffic and a ten percent reduction for households, industry and energy production itself.
EU measures to restrict CO2 emissions by trucks are necessary, as is the promotion of economical cars, such as hybrid and electrical cars, or at last a European energy/CO2 tax imposed by those 12 or 13 countries which want to impose a hefty levy.
Only if the European Union manages to reduce greenhouse gases can we be credible.
Then we will be able to reach a breakthrough at the sixth conference of the Groups in The Hague.
The most difficult tangles in the trade in emission rights and clean development mechanisms can then be cut through.
Needless to say, for the Green group, nuclear energy does not even enter into the picture as far as reaching a solution is concerned.
In Europe, but also worldwide, we need to focus on renewable energy, such as wind energy, solar energy and biomass.
In the case of a windmill, the cost of making and erecting one is covered after only four to six months.
Compare this with nuclear energy where it takes as much as ten years before nett energy finally exceeds the cost of building a plant.
Mr President, I believe that both the Commissioner and the representative of the Council are perfectly aware of the threats hanging over the planet because year after year this Parliament has warned them of these threats.
The increase in temperature by two degrees - as other Members have said - which is expected between now and 2010, if no measures are taken, the rise in sea levels, the disappearance of small islands and many of the catastrophes of the last two years which, according to the experts, are related to climate change, are facts which should oblige us to adopt immediate and concrete measures.
The resolution adopted by the Committee on the Environment moves in this direction, as do the amendments which were presented and approved unanimously.
Amongst these - and we are happy that Commissioner Wallström has pointed this out - is the clear criticism of the pressure exerted by the nuclear industry on Bonn so that nuclear energy may be used in the strategy to reduce CO2 emissions.
It seems to us that industry brings with it risks, as the Commissioner has said, in terms of safety and the subsequent use or recycling of waste. These risks are unacceptable to us.
For this reason, in the Committee on the Environment, we still propose renewable sources of energy and the adoption of clear measures with regard to transport; not only in road transport which is the form of transport which produces most CO2 emissions, but also in air transport which also produces many emissions and which, until now, has not been controlled as it should be.
We also agree with the Council that we should build bridges with developing countries, but building bridges with these countries means two things: not trying to do deals with them with regard to the buying and selling of quotas and not cutting development and aid funds so that they can adopt measures which will lead in the direction which we are proposing.
In one of the amendments we also propose that countries draw up clear and concrete plans for reductions in the different sectors - transport, agriculture, etc. because if no plans or concrete measures exist, then we will still be here talking about the same things far beyond 2000.
Mr President, at a time when globalisation is filling us with uncertainty and everything is in the short term and disposable, it is very difficult to have an overview of the future.
The new millennium is a great marketing product which seems to be concentrated on one night of partying without opening our minds to grand projects and ideas.
Is climate change the major challenge of the next century or a good New Year' s resolution without any significant value? It is difficult for us politicians to sell to our electors political decisions which are planned over ten or twenty years.
Yet have we not agreed to take responsibility?
The debate on climate change is not a trivial affair.
It is our industrialised countries which created this world and we must therefore lead by example. Can Trade, with a capital T, be more reasonable?
Can the countries of the world reconcile economic development with health without seeming naïve or demonstrating worthless good sense? We in the European bubble must not forget developing countries.
We must achieve a balanced partnership between all the countries of the world and between all economic actors. The applicant States must be involved given that they have to conform to European environmental standards.
The question of climate change and the resultant apocalyptic visions are a forceful and global way of drawing attention to the dangers of pollution.
The melting of the polar ice-caps and tropical storms are deemed to be the result of greenhouse gases which, in the main, are directly produced by our factories.
We therefore should have increased people' s awareness.
Floods and storms have been promised for those who are currently sat comfortably in front of their televisions and who believe themselves to be protected by economic development and temperate climates.
Climate change and the reawakened anger of nature are frightening concepts to countries which are now declaring that this situation cannot continue.
In order to stabilise the climate and reassure the world' s inhabitants, without overusing the concept of environmental protection which should be left to the ecologists, the issues of the Kyoto Protocol - mad cow disease, dioxins and the debate on GMOs - are being paraded.
Climatic disasters and food scares are of the same ilk and make societies distrustful faced with uncertainty and events they cannot control.
Business and governments now know that the only way forward is to include the environment and the principle of sustainable development.
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking Mr Hassi and Commissioner Wallström for their declaration.
I share their opinion that the problem of climate change requires a global solution.
It is therefore regrettable that so few countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
In the resolution, the criticism is expressed that the United States is so unwilling.
It is more important to assess our own behaviour.
The EU Member States have not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
If countries at a climate conference reach an agreement, then it is understood that every effort is made to reach sound implementation and execution.
The fact that this environmental problem needs to be solved worldwide does not detract from the huge responsibility incumbent upon each individual Member State.
I fully agree with the focus of the resolution being put on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
The measures involved have a beneficial effect on the environment.
However, there are also CO2 reducing measures which, besides said beneficial effects, also cause negative environmental effects.
In other words, a reduction in CO2 emissions can never be a licence to emit other harmful substances instead. Therefore, the EU' s energy policy must specifically embrace all environmental effects caused by a specific type of energy production.
Then environmental policy will actually be integrated into the energy policy, as laid down in the Treaty.
The environment needs to be integrated into the transport policy too.
The transport sector accounts for no less than 40% of total CO2 emissions.
It is evident that journeys and flights should be reduced.
The introduction of excise on kerosene remains a necessary measure, so that flight traffic is no longer given undue preferential treatment in financial terms over other types of transport. Responsibility very much applies to the elected Members of Parliaments.
Yesterday, the new building of the European Parliament was opened.
I, like many others, cannot explain to the electorate that monthly journeys between Brussels and Strasbourg are necessary. This is, unfortunately, a reality for the time being, but the climate in the European Council will hopefully change.
Mr President, everyone in this House agrees that reducing or at least stabilising CO2 emissions is an environmental imperative for our planet.
In 1992, at the Rio Convention, and then in 1997 at the Kyoto Conference, the European Union led the way.
We must now continue to propose a bold and ambitious policy on this subject, and the EU must also remain capable of convincing its partners, which means convincing its own Member States first.
For although Europe is talking about this issue, are the fifteen Member States ready to make the necessary efforts and to respect and implement the numerous directives approved here in this House?
We must therefore raise awareness among the Member States and among our partners.
It has already been mentioned that the United States of America is still reticent about this kind of policy and ambition.
The European Union must therefore be resolute in the face of the US Congress and Japan and it must also be able to convince countries such as Russia.
You can appreciate the enormous task facing us in this respect, a task also facing us in our discussions on enlarging the EU and our need to convince the applicant States that our environmental ambitions must be heeded.
Finally, the people must be made aware for it is through them that progress will be achieved.
I do not really favour energy taxes as I do not believe that environmental problems can be systematically solved with taxation.
The EU therefore has a real duty to raise awareness and provide information so that behaviour in the EU can change.
This is our ambition for the Europe of tomorrow.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you have made a very positive appraisal of the Bonn Conference which, from your point of view, I can understand.
In all honesty, however, although there has been progress in secondary theatres of war, as it were, for example how negotiations should be conducted, what working parties should be set up, no progress has been made on the main issue, i.e. what should be done about emission rights and emissions trading.
That is a pity because, as far as I can see, that is the main issue, especially in view of the fact that one large country, one contracting partner, is saying we want to be able to buy ourselves out of all our emissions obligations.
That this country is able to use internal political debate, i.e. the imminent election campaign in the USA, to block us and the other contracting States from making further progress on this central issue is scandalous!
As far as I can see, the decisive question is this: how can we inject new momentum into this process and encourage greater involvement on the part of this large contracting State on the other side of the Atlantic? How can we achieve progress in coming years and involve the United States in this?
As far as I am concerned, there can be no question of allowing countries to buy their way out of all their emission obligations, because what that means, in essence, is that we and the USA are able to absolve ourselves from our own obligations at the expense of less developed countries.
We overcame imperialism in the 19th century; surely we are not going to pave the way for imperialism in the 21st century!
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, thank you for your perceptive comments on global warming.
However, like my fellow Member, I do not totally agree with what you said about progress in the fight against this phenomenon.
We keep having conferences on global warming and they all turn out much the same. We should ask ourselves how many more so-called natural disasters it will take before the harmful effects of global warming, and their consequences, particularly on the economic and social development of European and world society, are really taken into account.
You do not need to be a scientist to realise that global warming is a fact.
The floods which are causing increasing amounts of damage are enough of a signal to be taken seriously.
The insurance companies, which obviously are directly and financially involved, have sounded the alarm about these natural disasters which seem to be beating all records this year. We should regard these indisputable signals as stop signs for they remind us daily of the urgent need to act and to adopt specific measures to combat global warming.
Yet it is astonishing how little attention is paid to all these conferences.
Apart from a few environmentalists who are deeply concerned about global warming, total indifference is the norm.
Even worse, under pressure from powerful nuclear lobbies, nuclear energy has nearly succeeded in being recognised as a renewable source of energy. This would be a disaster in itself.
To conclude, I believe we really are a long way off success in the fight against global warming.
This is why we have to set an example in this House, particularly as we appeared to be in the vanguard at Rio.
I would like to reply to Mr Poettering who made a request at the beginning of the sitting: the European Councils of Cologne and Tampere established a body responsible for drawing up a Charter of Fundamental Rights.
This body is made up of representatives of the European Parliament, of Heads of State and Government, of national parliaments and of the European Commission.
Mr President, one of the greatest challenges in the fight for sustainable development is to reduce the all too high levels of CO2 emissions and, to begin with, I should like to emphasise that nuclear power is not a renewable energy source and that it ought not therefore to be included among Kyoto' s flexible mechanisms, such as the mechanism for sustainable development.
The use of nuclear power must not stand in the way of the transition to a more sustainable energy supply.
In order to honour its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, the EU must, however, be involved in promoting renewable energy and seeking environmentally correct solutions so that the present level of CO2 emissions is reduced.
In this connection, I should like to refer to an investigation carried out by the Federation of European Contractors which shows that total European CO2 emissions can be reduced by a whole 12% by means of improving energy efficiency in buildings.
By insulating buildings, it will be possible, in addition to improving energy efficiency, to also create up to 300 000 permanent jobs in the EU over a 10-year period.
Both the Council and the Commission have previously acknowledged that some of the biggest potential for saving energy is to be found in the building sector.
I am therefore surprised that no-one has since mentioned this fact in the concrete proposals tabled with a view to fulfilling the Kyoto obligations, and I should like to ask the Commission whether this consideration has been quite specifically included among the matters to be deliberated by the Commission.
I can see that the Commission is not paying attention but I hope, all the same, that the question was heard.
Mr President, seven years after Rio, two years after Kyoto, the issue of climate change is today at a critical juncture.
It is true that the hypocrisy of the United States has greatly contributed to this situation as that country emits the most greenhouse gases and thus is least willing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol by 2002.
It is also true, however, that Europe itself has done little or nothing to achieve the targets that were set.
It is unacceptable that in principle, the European Union is fighting for a reduction in emissions and then, in practice, reaches the conclusion that, because the necessary policies have not been implemented, many Member States are already slipping alarmingly in relation to the limit values set in Kyoto for 2010.
We can even state that two years after Kyoto, although there were more than enough good intentions and fine speeches, there was a lack of political will to act.
This is exactly the time to act, and to act by coming up with new solutions; firstly by creating a European programme for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that supports and finances actions in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energies, a programme that proves that, contrary to what many would have us believe, nuclear energy may be the easiest path to take but it is not necessarily the best.
Secondly, we must establish financial instruments which will enable us to introduce CO2/energy taxes in all European countries.
Thirdly, we must launch a large European public information campaign, especially for economic operators, to achieve urgent change in our daily practices and behaviour in terms of the consumption and production of energy.
In order to do this, we do not have to wait for the United States of America, particularly because it is more and more likely that we will have to move ahead without that country for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002.
Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Kyoto is clearly one of the major challenges for the 21st century, yet the way that we resolve the issue of climate change may greatly affect future civilisation.
Parliament must therefore repeat its formal reservations about the right to pollute system, otherwise known as the flexibility mechanism. If we really want to solve the enormous problem of the greenhouse effect, we cannot operate a system in which everything can be bought and sold, including the right to pollute.
This is not true to our values and it will create profound inequalities.
We could take as an example the situation in the former Soviet Union, in what is now Russia.
This country is in decline and its development is threatened. There is therefore enormous potential for it to trade its rights to pollute.
So the Americans, taking advantage of their status as a rich country, and despite having imposed this mechanism on us, supposedly to ensure the application of the Kyoto decisions, are not only not applying these decisions themselves but are also manoeuvring to trade these infamous rights to pollute with Russia.
The richest countries can therefore pay to keep the rest under-developed so that they themselves do not have to make the efforts which they could.
This is unacceptable and Europe must say so.
Regardless of the Americans, Europe must say that it will ratify the Kyoto Protocol without getting involved in the right to pollute system.
The Commission must talk to Russia to ensure that it does not engage in these talks with the Americans and so that we can find other ways forward together.
Finally, Europe must act within its Member States and at Community level.
I would suggest that Europe and the Commission pursue two initiatives.
The first concerns the excellent work initiated by Jacques Delors on piggyback transport and the major non-polluting transport infrastructures to replace the lorry and the car. This work must finally be taken forward with financing from the European Union.
The second, in the car sector, involves establishing a renewal strategy for old cars, in addition to the standards which we have adopted, given that these cars produce considerably more pollution than newer vehicles.
Mr President, it is of course interesting to listen to Commissioner Wallström and Representative of the Council Hassi.
You express a certain optimism when it comes to the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, which I appreciate that one has to do in your position.
I personally am not so optimistic.
Greenhouse gases continue to increase throughout the world more than seven years after the Climate Convention was signed.
I have been participating in a worldwide energy analysis which is just now being carried out.
This shows - and, unfortunately, this has perhaps to be emphasised - that there will be plenty of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
Even if demand increases in the future, we shall be more or less swimming in oil and gas, and it will be cheap oil and gas. It is therefore absolutely necessary to take political measures.
The market cannot put the environmental consequences in question into the equation.
We must levy taxes and charges, and we must devise norms and standards if we want the alternatives which exist in the energy sphere to have a chance.
The United States' s passive attitude thus far has already been mentioned.
I have come to the conclusion that the European Union must very much take a leading role in this work.
The resolution states a number of steps which could lead to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol if Europe were to take the lead: a reduction of emissions here at home; concrete plans to reduce emissions in the most important sectors, above all within the transport sector where emissions are increasing most quickly; the introduction of economic instruments of control; early ratification of the Kyoto Protocol; and intensified dialogue, both with Japan and with the developing countries.
I realise, like earlier speakers, that we must involve America in this, but we cannot wait for their leadership.
My question both to Commissioner Wallström and Representative of the Council Hassi is this: you have expressed a general optimism; now where is the conclusion? My other question to Commissioner Wallström is this: are you prepared to give pro-active leadership a chance and, if so, how will it be possible for this to develop in the current political climate?
Mr President, in common with other speakers, I should like to begin by emphasising the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to reduce the effect upon the climate.
The present resolution is a good one but, following the discussion by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, two flaws have become apparent.
Firstly, there is a reference to nuclear power which is not directly connected to the resolution' s main purpose.
In my opinion, it would have been better to leave out completely the lines about nuclear power in the resolution but, since this has not been done, I would ask to support Mr Liese' s amendment.
Secondly, the resolution is deficient when it recommends general energy taxes and carbon dioxide taxes.
The majority of the Group of the European People' s Party and European Democrats have their doubts about an EU tax of this kind and, on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, voted against the proposal in this part of the resolution.
General taxes on industry are a blunt instrument for obtaining measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
To present energy taxes as the most important measure is simply to engage in empty rhetoric.
I believe instead that we should be encouraging the individual EU States to take responsibility for achieving the required level of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
It is therefore up to the individual Member States to find the most effective tools, best suited to their own national circumstances, for achieving the objectives in question.
Specifically targeted charges on carbon dioxide emissions should be more effective than general taxes, but there are also other options for individual Member States.
If need be, general EU taxes can be given an overarching dimension.
In my opinion, the prerequisites for devising tax instruments and tax legislation differ very considerably from one EU country to the next.
By supporting the proposal for EU taxes in the energy sphere, I do not want to be a party to adopting a principle which limits the individual EU countries' autonomy in tax matters.
There are members of the Group of the European People' s Party and European Democrats who, because of the above-mentioned contents of the text of the resolution, intend to vote against the resolution in its entirety.
I personally am going to vote in favour of the resolution, but with the reservations I have just mentioned.
Mr President, Commissioner, the series of climate summits that began seven years ago with Rio has produced some fine resolutions which have been full of aims ever more ambitious than those that came before.
The time for real action has not yet got under way, however, nor has it even begun.
Achieving demanding aims is not childsplay, as some people in this Chamber seem to assume.
In its resolutions, Parliament should not give priority to certain types of measures at the expense of others. All possible means of reducing emissions have to be adopted immediately.
In particular, this means trading emissions quotas, which is an effective way of reducing emissions, if clear rules based on the mechanisms of a market economy are established.
It is also very important that we do not limit our range of options by excluding the flexible mechanisms of carbon dioxide-free nuclear power.
The argument that says nuclear energy is not a sustainable means of producing energy, on account of the waste it produces, and cannot thus be included in the clean development mechanisms, is simply not tenable.
The nuclear power industry is the only energy business sector that has incorporated the costs associated with the entire lifespan of its product in its prices, and thus takes full responsibility for the safe depositing of its waste.
I would like to remind those Members here who continue to speak against nuclear power from one debate to the next that, but for the current level of nuclear energy being used, carbon dioxide emissions would immediately grow by 800 million tons every year.
We will not mention what sort of effects there would be if the world' s additional needs for energy were fully met without building more nuclear power plants.
Giving up the use of nuclear power may be a subject for populists in the developed countries of Europe, or here in Parliament, where it really is a populist subject, but the realistic alternative is nowhere else to be found, not even in those countries the Union is going to embrace in the future.
Mr President, if the overall social human and environmental benefits of clean air are to be secured, then the standards laid down by the EU's recent directive on vehicle emissions and fuel quality must be strictly adhered to.
There must be maximum cooperation between the EU Member State governments and all interested bodies so that a reduction in the use of CO2 becomes a reality.
I welcome the debate that took place this week in Parliament on the uses of alternative energy resources.
The Irish Government has brought out a Green Paper on sustainable energy, which is to be given special status within our national development plan for the period 2000-2006.
This Green Paper discusses the framework for reducing CO2 emissions within all sectors of our society.
More funding must be put aside for alternative energy resources and there is also an anticipation that there will be a switch from the use of solid fuel and oil to natural gas and renewable energy sources and power generation in the future.
This plan also proposes measures targeted at various consumer sectors which are designed to enhance energy awareness, expertise and practice in such areas as appliance purchasing, use of energy in the home, building installations, heating systems and energy management in industry, the services sector and also the public sector.
The publication of the Green Paper on sustainable energy in Ireland should be viewed as a positive contribution to the debate on how we deal with the climate change threat within the energy sector.
Various Members have asked questions and raised points, to which both the representatives of the Council and the Commission intend to reply.
Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, I have been listening to this debate with great interest, and it must be said that that I have nothing but respect for the high level of knowledge the European Parliament has regarding this subject.
Many MEPs have mentioned examples of problems, such as floods, storms and various meteorological catastrophes, which show that climate change is already happening.
I agree with what everyone has said here.
I also agree with what many have pointed out, that Kyoto is only the first step.
After the commitments of Kyoto we will have to be able to commit to greater reductions in emissions to be able to prevent global warming, which is happening dangerously fast.
There are two main aspects to this as far as the European Union is concerned. The first is the European Union' s action to reduce emissions in its own area, which is also a key issue with respect to the EU' s international credibility.
The Union really still has much to do in this area, which is something many MEPs have also mentioned.
I would like to comment briefly on the question of an energy tax.
It is absolutely right, as Mr Wijkman, as far as I remember, said, that there are too many fossil fuels in the world, in other words, market forces are not sufficient to limit their use.
The consumer behaviour patterns we all show affect the climate, and an energy tax, a carbon dioxide tax, is one way to make the price an eco-label.
We all know that it has been difficult in the European Union to take a decision on an energy tax but, for example, the conclusions of the Cologne Summit state the importance of this issue.
In my opinion, this question should be high up on the agenda of the Ecofin Council.
One step in the right direction is that achieved on Monday in the Environment Council, which is for a Council common position on a 'strategic directive to assess environmental effects' , which will be a good tool to evaluate the impact on the environment, including the effect of emissions on the climate, of different programmes and action.
The other aspect of our huge and difficult task is progress in international negotiations.
As I said in my opening speech, it is now essential to build bridges with the other players; many who have spoken here stressed quite rightly that we must build cooperation with players other than just the United States.
This is absolutely true, but I myself would certainly not see the USA in quite such a gloomy light as might have been inferred from some speeches.
I have the impression that the thinking is also changing in the USA.
Public opinion in the USA reveals concern about climate change.
This is also seen in the changing attitudes in business in the USA, and I myself have noticed this is also having an influence on politics.
Although we as yet have no certain proof that the rules for compliance with the Kyoto agreement and the mechanisms will turn out to be good rules, it is still completely feasible to establish sound rules in the planned timetable.
To the question of why the Union should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol during the sixth conference of the parties concerned, I would say that this will not be possible as we will not have any clear picture before that meeting of what we should be ratifying.
If we were to commit to ratification beforehand, it would also weaken our position in the talks and our chances of successfully addressing those issues which we aim to cover at the talks.
In spite of the fact that I consider ratification to be very important in itself, I still do not think it is yet possible.
In my opinion, the European Union has constantly demonstrated leadership with regard to this issue.
It is not at present as striking as it was, for example, at Kyoto, as we are now at the stage of the operation where we are plodding through the very many technical details.
Outwardly, this may not seem impressive, but it is absolutely essential.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what made the biggest impression on me during the conference in Bonn were the speeches by representatives of small island States.
The combined effects of climate changes affect, and have already affected, their respective countries in such a way that they are aware that the issue is important to their future and to their survival.
The anxiety about the future which they expressed in Bonn and the zeal with which they urged us to translate our words into actual deeds made an incredibly strong impression upon me.
I also listened to an old man from another island on which I had had the privilege to live for a short time.
He said to me: "I believe it is us ordinary people, who are thinking about our children and grandchildren, who are taking a longer-term view rather than you politicians.
You ought to reflect upon that fact.
Do not just think about your own periods of office, but contrive to raise your sights and look to the future which we ourselves face."
This was also a warning.
I do not, Mr Wijkman, want to be too optimistic and I hope it did not sound as if I believed this would be an easy fight.
An easy fight is just what we do not have at the moment.
We have made climate change into a concept which is politically correct and which is to be found in wordings, in documents and at the top of agendas. Unfortunately, however, we can see how the trends are in quite the wrong direction.
This means that we must act and that we must act now, because the effects will not perhaps become apparent for fifty or even a hundred years.
I agree with a lot of what has been said here about the value of integrating the environmental dimension into the whole of the transport sector and transport policy We in the Commission have also taken a number of important first steps. However, there is still much to be done in this area.
I believe that, if we are to succeed, then we must also provide ourselves with the tools and instruments which will enable us to make a difference.
We shall need more in the way of financial instruments of control.
We must, in actual fact, put a price upon the environment so that we can actually see the alternatives developing.
We must involve all the various interested parties in a much broader way.
We shall need the help and cooperation of industry in order to achieve this. If we are to obtain sufficient political power and support for the purpose of taking the measures required, then we shall need to mobilise our respective citizens in all the Member States.
To reply, nonetheless, to the question about the ratification process: it is clear that the Commission and the European Union must continue to play a leading role. I nevertheless regard ratification by the EU alone as a second-best alternative.
I think we must concentrate on getting the United States to join us in ratifying the agreement and that it should preferably do so at the same time as ourselves and as quickly as possible in connection with COP 6.
I also think that we must state clearly that we are concerned here with obtaining coordinated ratification from the EU. Otherwise, we shall not achieve that distribution of the burden which we have already agreed upon within the European Union.
We in the European Union ought therefore to ratify the agreement on a common basis and with all Member States on board.
We need to put more pressure upon all the Member States as they set about preparing their national plans.
We must show the way and take a more positive lead. We also need more power at our disposal throughout this process.
I hope that the documents which we in the Commission are to present at the beginning of next year will help us obtain the power to drive forward all the work on combating climate change.
I should like to thank you for all your valuable and constructive contributions.
I can also say that, from the Commission' s point of view, I cannot see us doing anything but support the amendments and the progressive resolution which Parliament has tabled.
I would like to notify you that I have received a proposal for a resolution pursuant to Rule 37(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12 p.m.
Situation in Macao
The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on the situation in Macao.
I invite Mrs Hassi to take the floor on behalf of the Council.
Mr President, I am sorry that Mrs Siimes, who would be the right person to speak on this matter, is not here.
She is at present having talks with the European Parliament' s Committee on Budgets.
In any case, she is in the European Parliament building.
I shall therefore read the Council resolution.
On 20 December this year Macao returns to Chinese rule by virtue of the agreement made between Portugal and China.
Talks on effecting the transfer of power have been going on between Portugal and China.
In a spirit of friendship and cooperation the Portuguese/Chinese liaison group has prepared the transfer of power and regular meetings have been held over the last twelve years.
Macao will become a special administrative area, with broad autonomy except in foreign policy and defence.
All the other administrative matters of the area will thus be in the hands of the local people, and will be their responsibility.
The European Union has had a special relationship with Macao, via Portugal, and the Union' s institutions have themselves prepared for the forthcoming transfer of power.
The Commission presented the Council and Parliament with a report on Macao entitled "The European Union and Macao: Relations after the Year 2000" .
The Council approved the conclusions on Macao with reference to the report in its meeting of 10 December 1999.
In addition, the Helsinki Summit delivered its opinion on Macao as part of the Presidency' s conclusions.
The European Union supports Macao' s status as a special administrative area, and will be following developments there closely.
The bonds are old and strong between Europe and Macao, making the relationship a special one.
The legal system, the rights of citizens, freedoms and values are similar in the Member States of the European Union and Macao.
They have important trade and investment connections and they enjoy very strong cultural links.
After the transfer of power, the European Union will monitor the reality of the 'one country, two systems' principle.
The European Union wishes to emphasise the importance of this special identity for Macao and holds it to be important to maintain citizens' rights and freedoms in accordance with the Community resolution of 1987 and the special administrative areas' constitution as laid down by China and Portugal.
The European Union will monitor the implementation of the international conventions that Macao is party to.
The European Union regards it as being especially important that the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and the basic standards established in the conventions associated with the ILO are applied in all their respects in Macao.
Trade relations between the European Union and Macao are important.
The EU is the third largest investor in Macao and the region' s second largest trading partner.
It has been agreed to continue with the agreement on trade and cooperation made between the EC and Macao after the transfer process is completed.
This agreement will create a lasting framework for cooperation between the special administrative area of Macao and the EU, and will help to maintain regular dialogue on economic matters and matters of commerce and cooperation.
This link will be further reinforced by the accreditation of Macao' s economic and trade office to the European Communities and the accreditation of the Commission' s Hong Kong delegation to Macao.
The example of Hong Kong will give us cause to believe that the transfer of power in Macao will proceed without conflict.
Macao' s small size and unity, as well as the international support she receives, will safeguard the future development of the special administrative area.
This weekend I will be travelling to Macao to represent the Commission at the hand-over ceremonies.
As honourable Members might imagine, there is a certain sense of déjà vu for me in all of this.
Some might say that I am becoming rather an aficionado of hand-over ceremonies.
I have been referred to by some as the last Governor but that has never actually been true.
Certainly, my great friend and former colleague, Vasco Rocha Vieira, has more claim to the title than I do.
In making this statement this morning I want to place on record my admiration for all he has done in Macao in his long tenure as Governor.
His distinguished record as a public servant of skill and integrity is, I am sure, recognised in his own country as it is in Macao, and in this Parliament as it is in the Commission.
I am much looking forward to being able this weekend to salute that service as my gubernatorial colleague leaves his office.
Macao, like Hong Kong before it, will begin a new era after 19 December as a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China.
It will be different but, in crucial respects, life must and will stay the same.
That is what is meant by the concept of "one country - two systems" under which Macao, like Hong Kong, will retain its freedoms and fundamental rights and enjoy a high degree of autonomy as a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China.
Those rights and freedoms, as the Presidency said a few moments ago, are set out in terms in the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration which both parties have solemnly pledged to uphold.
The European Union will continue to take a close interest in Macao after 19 December.
The Commission has recently published a communication entitled "The European Union and Macao beyond 2000".
The Council endorsed the communication last week and welcomed and reinforced the commitments it makes.
In particular, the communication underlines the central importance we attach to the full implementation of the joint declaration.
It makes clear that, as in the case of Hong Kong, the Commission will take a close interest in this matter and - again as we do for Hong Kong - we will publish an annual report on Macao.
We will follow the implementation of international conventions of which Macao is a member, in particular the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.
We also intend to work to strengthen EU-Macao relations, notably by encouraging EU companies to continue to invest in the territory.
The trade and cooperation agreement between the European Community and Macao, signed in 1992, will remain in force.
The Commission welcomes the accreditation of a Macao economic and trade office to the European Communities.
It will help to maintain and reinforce our dialogue on trade, economic and cooperation issues.
I feel strongly, as honourable Members will understand, about our continuing interest in Macao, about our continuing obligation.
We want to have as good a relationship with the future chief executive of the special administrative region as we have had with my friend the present Governor.
I would like to invite the chief executive to pay an early visit to Brussels; and it would also be good to welcome the chief executive of the Hong Kong special administration here when he can manage it or, alternatively, his internationally renowned deputy.
What is happening in Macao next Sunday is an important moment in Portugal's history, in China's history, in Europe's history.
Portugal, like the country I know best - or used to know best - has done its own best to discharge the responsibilities bequeathed by history honourably and well.
We all have to take account of different circumstances, of different challenges; nothing is ever quite the same.
But when I was in Hong Kong I always felt that when I talked to my colleague across the Pearl River Delta I was working with someone who shared my values and who had a profound sense of duty.
We all run our course.
Portugal has run her course in Macao and is fortunate that her honour during this passage has been in the hands of Governor Vieira and his officials in the Government of Macao.
Thank you, Commissioner.
At times I was not sure whether you spoke in your capacity as Commissioner or as Governor, but in this case both problems are very much linked.
Mr President, the European People' s Party has repeatedly stated that it considers the Council and the Commission' s adoption of a public position before 20 December to be of fundamental importance. That is the date on which the transfer of sovereignty of the territory of Macao to the People' s Republic of China will take place.
I would therefore like to show my appreciation and approval of the positions adopted here by the representatives of the Presidency of the Commission and my wholehearted agreement with the tribute paid by Commissioner Christopher Patten to Governor Vasco Rocha Vieira.
The other political Groups have finally accepted the position of the European People' s Party and we therefore consider it essential that this debate takes place here and now, by happy coincidence on the day on which a delegation from the Chinese Parliament is visiting us.
The intervention of the European Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission will not only contribute to providing a more substantial safeguard for a combination of interests that were stated in good time, but will also reaffirm a genuine leading role for the European Union, which will ensure that China continues to see it as a favoured partner in discussions on a global strategy for peace, to the building of democracy, to the safeguard of human rights, to development, to dialogue and to modernisation on a worldwide scale.
For more than four and a half centuries, the presence of the Portuguese in Macao has almost always been peaceful and has almost always been as important for Portugal and for Europe as it has for China.
Therefore, what is about to take place in this quite unique case must involve the European Union in a very special way.
It is worth recognising the importance of the fact that Macao was the first permanent point of contact that Europe established with the Far East, in the middle of the 16th Century.
Macao is therefore a symbol of almost five centuries of peaceful coexistence and of mutual advantages in a framework of the most varied diplomatic, cultural and commercial activities. This has facilitated contact between the European and Chinese civilisations, the promotion and protection of China' s external trade and a significant assertion of European interests.
All of the following has contributed to Macao' s uniqueness - its history, its traditions and cultural forms and the racial mix and coexistence which have held sway there for such a long time and which are an extraordinary asset to the new relationship between the European Union and China.
This is also why it makes perfect sense and presents a major political opportunity for us to adopt a clear position, one which will express the well-founded expectations and the commitment of the Union' s citizens concerning the future of the special administrative region of Macao in the political context of China and concerning Europe' s relations with both, with regard to defence and the promotion of human rights, of other constitutional values and those of the specific legal framework which applies to the region by means of its new statute and of the principle of "one country, two systems" .
Let the same thing also be said for the principle of autonomy and Macao' s current economic and social systems as well as, on a wider scale, for the European Union' s relations with that part of the Far East, once the experience brings to an end certain possibilities, which may be of extraordinary relevance to this part of the world.
As far as these and other aspects are concerned, some of which involve my country more specifically, it is to be hoped that the conclusions of this debate will make an appropriate contribution to achieving the aims that have been stated.
On the other hand though, the proposal to produce annual reports on the European Union' s relations with Macao, which has been put forward by the Commission and which should also be welcomed, should not preclude the European Parliament itself from paying the closest attention to the matter, particularly by following its development from 20 December. It could do this by broadening the exchange of information and interinstitutional cooperation in this area, by creating its own interconnecting contact group, by analysing and debating the periodical reports that are presented to it, in short, by studying the development of all aspects of Macao' s overall situation.
This should be done in view of the transformations in international relations in the Far East and in view of the changes due to take place in this area, not forgetting the new situations which will eventually result from China' s entry into the WTO and by the development and/or qualitative change in its relationship with the United States of America.
Mr President, the motion for a joint resolution, the draft of which has been presented and the substance of which will progress very quickly if it is favourably received, will be able to make a significant contribution to achieving all of the objectives that have been mentioned.
Mr President, on behalf of the European Socialist Party, I would like to say that we are delighted with the declaration by the President-in-Office of the Council and also with Commissioner Patten' s very pleasant and intelligent statement concerning Governor Rocha Vieira.
I have personally been connected with the issue of Macao since the revolution of 25 April.
I remember that, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, I met my Chinese counterpart at the UN immediately following the revolution, and he expressed his feelings by saying "for us, Macao is not a colony; therefore, although you are shedding your colonies, do not touch Macao; it will sort itself out in its own time" .
The process was actually settled in a fairly cordial manner and in line with the friendship that has traditionally existed between Portugal and China.
The joint Sino-Portuguese Declaration - which Commissioner Patten has already referred to here - is a good declaration and contains, on the whole, the broad ideas that should guide Macao for the next fifty years as a special zone, with its own uniqueness in the overall context of China, that is, by respecting the legislation established by the Portuguese in Macao.
Macao, as has already been said, has always been a melting pot of cultures and of new meetings of cultures, of religions too, and has always been a territory where peace, tranquillity and coexistence between peoples of the most diverse ethnic backgrounds have reigned.
This must continue.
The role of the European Union, the Commission and the European Parliament is crucial in this regard, given that, as has already been emphasised, many conventions between the European Union and Macao have been signed, and it is right that over the next fifty years, the European Parliament and our European Institutions should be able to follow Macao' s development, which I think will be a happy one.
I also feel honoured that I shall be present in Macao on 20 December.
I am sure that the ceremony will be exemplary and I must say that, as a Portuguese Member of this Parliament, I am delighted with the circumstances in which, at the end of the century and of the millennium, Portugal' s cycle of imperialism is coming to a close.
Portugal was the first European Empire and will be the last European empire and we might say that the cycle is being closed with a "golden key" , to the extent that, on the one hand, Portugal is conducting a peaceful and friendly handover of the territory of Macao to the People' s Republic of China and, in the same sense, that Timor gained its independence in a fortunate way.
These were the ideals of the democratic revolution, which transformed my country in 1974.
Portugal is a different country today, a free country, a country in which people coexist peacefully, one in which human rights are respected and whose main objective is peace.
It is in the spirit of peace and respect for human rights that we shall be sincere in handing over the administration of Macao to China, as it now falls within China' s competence, in the hope that China will respect the commitments that were signed jointly in the Sino-Portuguese Declaration.
I am grateful for the way in which the Governor of Macao was spoken of, whom, moreover, I had the honour of appointing to this post when I was President of Portugal, and I can say that Governor Rocha Vieira is truly a man who has honoured Portugal and who has enabled Portugal to leave the territory of Macao with its head held high and with a clear conscience.
Thank you, President Soares.
I am sure that you will represent the European Parliament well in Macao, even if, as a Portuguese person, your heart will be slightly heavy.
Mr President, I welcome the Commission's communication and today's statements.
Macao offers an opportunity for trade, dialogue and engagement which is the way to bring freedom and democracy to the Communist dictatorship of the People's Republic of China.
I welcome too Commissioner Patten's honourable personal commitment and record of success in this regard.
However, for the Union to talk of a shared legal system between Europe and Macao stretches credibility.
Recently, a private commercial dispute involving the financial interests of the mainland's political leaders led to the kidnap in Macao of an innocent Australian-Chinese businessman, Mr James Pang, and his jailing on the mainland for seven years on trumped-up charges.
Since China has refused to agree to the establishment of a court of final appeal, Macao has barely even the semblance of an independent judiciary which Hong Kong has.
Today's news from Hong Kong in this regard is not good.
The court of final appeal has reversed the judgement of a lower court and convicted two young men for defacing a flag at a peaceful demonstration, despite the incorporation of the ICCPR into the territory's law.
It shows how supposed safeguards on freedom in Hong Kong are being quickly eroded.
Let us keep talking to China on Macao and other issues but let us not fool ourselves that the Christmas gift we give Macao next week will protect the freedoms of its people.
In the communication, the Commission talks of "a solid relationship in terms of culture and civilisation".
I hope the Council and Commission will assure us that they will not shrink from expressing Europe's outrage at the continued assaults on human rights and human liberties which pose a major challenge to us in the next century.
Mr President, after the transfer of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China, with the admirable leading role played by Commissioner Patten, the transfer of Macao, by agreement between Portugal and the People' s Republic of China, is a necessary and inevitable act that must be welcomed.
However, as the joint resolution that has been presented states, the necessity of this act does not mean that the European Union is no longer interested in the future of a territory which has such close links with our history and even our culture.
Macao is a current symbol of that Portuguese, Hispanic and European spirit of adventure, which led us to establish human and trade relationships on every continent.
Today, Macao can and must serve as a democratic door or window which will enable us to continue a new type of relationship with this huge country China, to our mutual benefit and to that of all humanity.
To this end, particularly on behalf of my Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, and although we agree with the joint resolution, I would like to emphasise the need to safeguard Macao' s autonomy by consolidating its civil society and its democracy with freedom of political association, by keeping the Union open to the territory' s inhabitants and by strengthening trade relations with it.
Taking advantage of this opportunity to speak and of the opportunity provided by the presence here of President Xanana Gusmão, I would like to state my belief that, taking into account its pressing needs and our common identity, the European Union must immediately establish special links with Timor in order to guarantee its economic and social development and independence.
Mr President, we are delighted with the way in which the preparation for the region of Macao passing into the sovereignty of the People' s Republic of China on 20 December has taken place.
We hope that no doubts remain as to the climate of mutual understanding and of political will shown by Portugal and by the People' s Republic of China and that no one still feels ambiguous about the outlook for the future development of the special administrative region of Macao.
We think that conditions have been created for economic and cultural relations to develop on a basis of cooperation and mutual benefit between the People' s Republic of China, specifically through Macao, and the European Union and its Member States.
We agree with the joint resolution presented here despite some differences of opinion, which shows our firm desire to work together in developing these friendly relations at this historic moment, which we welcome wholeheartedly.
Mr President, four days away from the transfer of power in Macao, the resolution, with which we agree, is extraordinarily valuable because it is confident and because it provides guarantees for the future.
Over these few days, there are two other curious coincidences taking place here in Strasbourg.
Firstly, with us here we have Xanana Gusmão, who has just arrived from East Timor.
Although in different circumstances, which are painful and very harsh, Timor is like Macao: it represents another promise of progress for human rights, freedom and for the rule of law in Asia, another beacon of hope with links to European culture through Portuguese culture and experience.
The second coincidence is that the interparliamentary meeting with the People' s Republic of China is being held now, which gives us the opportunity to communicate the depth of our feeling and the strength of our expectations for Macao and its future.
Portugal takes pride in the efforts that have been made in the territory of Macao and in the hopeful signs that several centuries of peaceful coexistence have left there.
One of the lasting symbols that should now be highlighted is the utter uniqueness of Macao, the open cultural tolerance between peoples and cultures, religious freedom, traces of unique symbiosis and a legal culture founded on the principles and values of the rule of law and human rights.
In this peaceful process, one of dialogue between Portugal and China, it was essential that China clearly embraced Macao' s unique nature. It also had to give solemn guarantees that it would preserve and value it in the context of its autonomy, enshrined in law.
For China, this is how its policy known as "one country, two systems" works.
For us, it is the direct expression of the inalienable rights of the citizens of Macao.
I am delighted at the broad convergence that we have been able to obtain on this joint resolution as well as on the positions stated by the Presidency, by the Council and by the Commission.
They are a very positive and promising sign for which the citizens of Macao are grateful and which we Portuguese, still speaking on their behalf, also appreciate.
This collective attention on the part of Europe is the best additional, practical guarantee that we can give, the best way that we have of guaranteeing that Macao' s unique nature is safeguarded, and of continuing to deal with Macao in a unique way, not by putting it into the pot with every other country.
Mr President, like slaves in Ancient Rome, Africans in the plantations in the Americas or, better still, like serfs, the inhabitants of Macao change master without anyone having consulted them, without them having been able to express their views on the subject.
Once again, a people' s right to self-determination is being trampled underfoot, just as it was in Chechnya.
I have heard - and I regret this - Mr Soares and others likening East Timor to Macao.
This is a completely shameful parallel: East Timor is going to become independent, whereas Macao is moving towards a communist dictatorship.
Mr President, I agree with the previous speaker that the people of Macao are the main element missing from the 1987 agreement between Portugal and China, and indeed from this handover.
They have not been consulted. Why not?
Mr Patten, the Portuguese presence in Macao was not the result of an unfair treaty extracted from a weakened China in the 19th century by force or by the threat of force.
It was the result of a properly agreed treaty.
Four hundred and forty-two years of continued and peaceful presence have woven economic, cultural, spiritual, family and political ties.
Even during the hardest times in Portugal, the population of Macao has remained loyal. It is this loyalty which earned its Council the name of "Loyal Senate" .
These are the links which you are preparing to break.
Today at least, Mr Soares, this is not just a lot of hot air.
You are abandoning the 440 000 inhabitants of Macao to communism without allowing them to have a say.
Macao and Timor were in the same situation.
It is ironic that just when the people of Timor are gaining independence, the people of Macao are returning to servitude.
In the words of Jean de la Fontaine, "Thus do the courts acquit the strong" - communist China - "and doom the weak" - Indonesia today - "as therefore wrong" .
You talk about retrocession yet you can only retrocede something which was taken illegitimately.
You talk about the local population but what guarantees do you have about their rights, for example, the religious freedom of the Catholics bound to a Rome which does not recognise the communist government? You talk about maintaining a European presence in Macao.
I am very afraid that this presence will be like the ruined cathedral which overlooks the city and of which only the façade remains. It will only be a remnant of what was, an illusion simply serving as an alibi for abandonment by the West, with gaping holes which, in the past, gave access to a wonderful structure and which will now be open only to the wind.
Mr President, I have nothing else to add other than to say that the Finnish delegation will be led by the Finnish President, Mr Ahtisaari, who will also be representing the country holding the Presidency of the EU, in the ceremony to mark the transfer of power.
I am pleased that the European Parliament representation is also a prestigious one, as the former President of Portugal will be representing it.
The Council would like to add its voice to the hopes expressed here that the transfer of power will be a peaceful and splendid occasion.
First of all I would like to recognise, as I am sure the whole Parliament does, the role that the honourable Member Mr Soares has played, not only in the restoration of democracy, decency and human rights to one of the greatest European countries, but also the role he has played historically in the end of empire, and in the ending of empire as decently as could be managed, not least in Macao.
It is true, as the last speaker Mr Gollnisch pointed out, that Macao represents a free society: a free city on the edge of China, on the edge of Asia, as Mr Graça Moura pointed out at the beginning of our debate; an extraordinary crossroads between east and west ever since the 16th century.
I have enough faith, enough belief, in the values which Macao and Hong Kong represent to believe that, whatever the style of government in the region, those values will survive and prosper, not least because they are rooted in people's hearts.
Mr Gollnisch spoke of his concerns about future freedom of worship in Macao.
Well, if I take Hong Kong as an example, I do not think Mr Gollnisch should have too much to worry about.
I will be attending mass next Sunday morning in the cathedral in Hong Kong with my friends in the parish, as I used to when I was Governor.
There has been no sign of anything in Hong Kong other than the continuing vitality of the Christian churches.
I am sure that will be the case in Macao as well.
But we do have to be concerned about the survival of the rule of law, the survival of civil liberties, the survival of human rights, as Mr Watson pointed out in his valuable corrective.
Issues like the James Pang case did cause concern to the international community.
The international community was concerned about the earlier decision taken by the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong, or rather the reversal of that decision by the parliament in Beijing.
We are concerned to speak out when there seems to us to be actions taken which threaten the continuance of the rule of law; and we would not be true to the promises we have made to people in Macao and Hong Kong, we would not be true to our own values, if we did not speak out when those values appeared to us to be under threat.
What sensible leaders in China will recognise is that the return of Macao, like the return of Hong Kong, did not just mean an extremely rich and prosperous asset returned to the motherland, but represented something more than that.
Hong Kong and Macao are both great international cities; they can play a very important part in the continuing development and successful opening of China to the rest of the world; and in playing that role Macao will have all our best wishes for the exciting period of history which I am sure lies ahead.
I would like to close, as I closed my earlier remarks, by referring to the outstanding record of the present Governor.
I would like to say that I am sure the best wishes of Parliament go to his successor, the Chief Executive, who has a difficult job, but one which I am sure he will carry out to the very best of his ability.
Thank you, Commissioner Patten.
I would like to inform you that I have received six motions for resolutions pursuant to Article 37 paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 10 a.m.
Beijing Action Platform
The next item is the debate on the oral questions
(B5-0035/99) by Mrs Theorin and
(B5-0037/99) by Mrs Theorin
to the Commission and the Council, on behalf of the Committee on Women' s Rights and Equal Opportunities, on the European Union follow-up to the Beijing Action Platform.
All the European Member States adopted the Beijing Platform for Action.
We committed ourselves to 12 areas.
They are all indispensable for women's full enjoyment of their human rights.
Five years later it is time for an evaluation.
The first area is poverty.
We pledged to adopt macro-economic policies for the needs of women in poverty and to ensure women's equal access to economic resources.
But single mothers and older women remain the main victims of poverty.
The second area is education.
We promised to ensure women's equal access to science and technology and life-long education.
Unfortunately, education of women and men still follows a stereotyped pattern.
The third area is health.
We agreed to increase resources for women's health.
Yet middle-aged and elderly women remain beset, more than men, with health problems.
Maternity and child mortality are still too high.
The fourth area is violence.
We promised to eliminate gender-based violence, yet violence against women remains the single largest injury to European women.
Between 15% and 25% of women are battered during pregnancy and sexual trafficking is increasing, while only 2% to 3% of those men who commit rape go to prison.
The fifth area is armed conflict.
We promised to increase women's participation in conflict resolution and protect women in armed conflicts, yet women still make up the overwhelming majority of those affected by armed conflict but are absent from peace negotiations and peace transition initiatives.
The sixth area is women and the economy.
We pledged to promote women's access to employment and control over economic resources.
Women remain virtually absent from or are poorly represented in economic decision making.
Women earn, on average, 75% of the hourly wages of men and their employment rate is about 20% lower.
Decision making is the seventh area.
We promised to ensure women's equal access to, and full participation in, power structures and decision making, yet nowhere is the gap between de jure and de facto gender equality greater than in the area of decision making.
The eighth area is institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women.
We agreed to mainstream gender in legislation, public policies and programmes.
Unfortunately, the political will has been absent.
Gender mainstreaming and gender impact assessment are far from a reality.
Women's human rights is the ninth area.
We promised to fully implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Today there is still insufficient recognition of the principle that human rights apply equally to women and men.
The tenth area is media.
We pledged to promote a non-stereotyped portrayal of women in the media yet, as a result of massive male domination of media power, the media continue to project negative and degrading images of women.
The eleventh area is environment.
The European Members pledged to involve women actively in environmental decision making.
Women's experience and skill remain insufficiently used in environmental policy actions.
The twelfth and last area is the girl child.
We promised to eliminate all forms of discrimination against the girl child, yet statistics show that a girl child is discriminated against from the earliest stages of life, through her childhood and into adulthood.
This is the discouraging result five years after Beijing and after 25 years of effort since the United Nations incurred the responsibility for promoting women's rights at national, regional and international levels.
It is high time for the UN "Beijing plus five" special session in June next year to take concrete action to implement the Beijing platform.
An action-oriented plan for advancing the Beijing goals is necessary if all governments are to implement strategies for gender equality in all 12 critical areas of concern.
The European Union must play a truly active role.
The preparatory work at European level is already far advanced.
The European Union work must be speeded up so it can have a real influence before positions are fixed at international level.
Our question is: how will the Commission and the Council ensure that Parliament becomes a real partner, both in the preparatory work on the European Union input to "Beijing plus five", and in the European Union's official delegation to the New York Conference?
Mr President, we thought that the honourable Member, Mrs Theorin, would ask her question in Swedish, and we have therefore prepared our answer in Swedish.
Thank you, in any case, for having taken up this very important question.
As Mrs Theorin is certainly aware, the European Union' s preparatory conference, which was planned for December of this year within the framework of the European Commission, will now take place in February of next year.
The intention is that the applicant countries, non-governmental organisations and, of course, Members of the European Parliament who have already been invited as lecturers and mediators should also take part in this conference.
Since this falls within the sphere of the Commission' s activities, it is only appropriate to turn to the Commission for more information.
To confine ourselves to the latest development within the Council, the Finnish Presidency has prepared a questionnaire addressed to all the Member States and to all the European institutions on the subject of "Women in the Decision-making Process" .
Their answer has made it possible for the Finnish Presidency to prepare a report containing nine indicators, together with recommendations.
This report was debated in the Council (Employment and Social Affairs) on 22 October of this year.
Parallel to the debates based on the Presidency' s above-mentioned report, the Council has adopted a number of conclusions in which account is taken of the Finnish Presidency' s report.
The nine indicators it is proposed should be used when next monitoring implementation of the Beijing Action Platform are included in these conclusions, and a reminder is provided of the Member States' commitment, in accordance with the Beijing Action Platform, to achieve the equal participation of women and men at all levels where power is exercised and decisions taken.
The Member States are urged to take any necessary measures.
Furthermore, the Council is following with interest the debates which are taking place in Parliament, particularly in the Committee on Women' s Rights and Equal Opportunities in which the honourable Member is chairperson
My personal comment is that I agree with Mrs Theorin that violence against women is the greatest individual violation of women' s rights.
When it comes to the conference in New York, it ought to be pointed out that this is an Intergovernmental Conference and that there is therefore no official delegation as such from the European Union but, instead, delegations from the Member States.
Moreover, the Commission has observer status.
Mr President, my answer has two parts: the first part concerns what has been done so far following the Beijing Conference and how the European Commission has supported the action decided on the joint platform, and the second concerns the role of the European Parliament with regard to the United Nations Conference in the summer of 2000.
I agree with Mrs Theorin that the situation is particularly dramatic for women in many places on the planet and is becoming critical.
Unfortunately, globalisation, development, technologies, the free movement of capital, goods and, above all, people often have negative rather than positive implications for women and children in the Third World.
I should like to refer to some of the action taken by the Commission; however, I would stress that there is, I believe, a great deal of room for further mobilisation by both the Commission and the Member States and, of course, a special policy to support these issues is needed, both in the run up to the conference and afterwards, within the fifth women' s action plan.
As you know, the European Commission drafted an announcement in 1995, in parallel to the Beijing Conference, in which it adopted gender mainstreaming in all development policies.
A vote on gender mainstreaming in all individual policies was held in 1995 and guidelines were drafted for the Commission services to follow.
A budget line was allocated to increasing awareness and supporting action for women in developing countries.
It was agreed to create indicators and, in April 1999, the first announcement was made of the results of these joint indicators, which take account of the place of women in the economy, in politics and in society in relation to the development programmes approved. The first two-year report evaluating the results of these policies will be presented in 2000.
I repeat that some action has been taken since Beijing, but this needs to be stepped up and consolidated with much more specific measures.
As far as the participation of the European Parliament is concerned, we must acknowledge that, for years now, the European Parliament has been instrumental in raising public awareness both in Europe and throughout the world and in the decision-making process; i.e. it has affected the decisions taken by the Council and the Commission.
The European Parliament therefore has an exceptionally important role and it will have a great deal of input into this procedure up to June.
As you know, a committee in which the European Parliament is involved is responsible for pre-conference planning.
The Member States are helping to organise the United Nations Conference.
As the Presidency has stressed, we shall be taking part as observers.
We have the previous experience of Beijing but that will not prevent continuous and fundamental cooperation throughout this period so that we can arrive at common positions in the fifteen Member States. This will be particularly important for the positions which we will put forward and in giving us the strength to put these positions forward in June.
Mr President, would it be possible to conclude the debate now? This should last about ten minutes.
Otherwise we shall have to stay here for the whole day.
Commissioner, we have to prepare the room for the formal sitting.
That means that we will continue the debate until Mrs Gröner and then break off.
Mr President, in 1995 at the fourth World Conference of Women in Beijing, organised by the UN, 189 countries adopted a platform for action and a declaration in which the participating governments committed themselves to improving the situation of women.
If we examine the results after almost five years and with a view to the June meeting in New York, we should ask ourselves: What progress have we made? What has improved and what has got even worse?
We are witnessing many armed conflicts, violence against women and extreme poverty in many cases.
On the borders of the European Union, we have endured the wars in Bosnia and in Kosovo, which have still not returned to an acceptable state of normality.
There are currently conflicts in Chechnya, in other regions of the Caucasus, in Afghanistan, especially the Panjshir Valley, in Africa and other regions.
Violence and terrorism have been present in Algeria and still no solution has been found to normalise life and allow progress in all areas.
In many parts of the world, women are victims of violence and traditional practices which do not take account of their personal dignity or their human rights.
They are barred from professional life and even access to health care.
The trade in human beings particularly affects women, who are victims of organised mafias and prostitution.
This particularly affects younger women and, unfortunately, does not only happen in the less developed countries, but also in the wealthy countries.
Women are reacting, however.
They are reacting more and more and they are rebelling against those situations which degrade them and marginalise them.
They want to participate in professional life, in political life, in the education of their children and in the training of young women.
Numerous laws have been implemented to protect women and allow them to fight inequality, as well as allowing them to participate in political activity.
Women are reacting: they make use of the laws in their favour, they organise themselves into cooperatives and manage to bring about a form of development which allows them to improve their quality of life.
They want to participate more and more in technological innovations; they have discovered the opportunities offered by organising themselves and establishing associations in their places of residence, in their work-places and in their regions.
They are getting better and better at fighting the old problems and achieving better lives.
However, despite the progress made, we have to continue working so that many women may have more dignified and fair lives.
The meeting in New York, following on from the conference in Beijing, will be a good opportunity to continue working along this line.
I therefore ask for more participation by the Parliament and support from the European institutions so that our presence there may be effective.
Thank you, Mrs Gröner.
The debate will continue after the Commission' s statement. Unfortunately, this will be after the reports by Mr Papayannakis and Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, but before question time at 5.30 p.m.
Does that perhaps answer your question Mrs Theorin?
I must now suspend the sitting for the formal sitting at 11.30 a.m.
As rapporteur, Mrs Theorin would like to ask a further question.
Mr President, although I fully appreciate that we have to break off in order to award the prize to Xanana Gusmão, whom I fully and completely support, I should nonetheless like, on behalf of the Committee on Women' s Rights and Equal Opportunities, to ask whether we are to see as discrimination against women the fact that we do not get to continue our debate at three o' clock on the dot, which I think would have been quite the natural thing to do.
I would appeal to you, Mr President, to alter matters in such a way that you also respect the women here in Parliament and in such a way that we might have the final part of our discussion at three o' clock, with the other subjects discussed afterwards.
Mrs Theorin, that was the arrangement from the outset.
The agenda was set under the auspices of a lady President, so certainly no thoughts were voiced in that direction.
We have indeed often had cases in the past where debates had to be adjourned for formal sittings.
It is normal procedure here in this House and, thank God, has nothing to do with the report.
I should now like to suspend the sitting so that the room can be prepared for the formal sitting for Mr Gusmão, the Sakharov prize-winner.
(The sitting was suspended at 11.30 a.m. and resumed at 12.05 p.m.)
Strictly speaking, that was not a point of order but it was apposite in the circumstances.
In my view, when Parliament undertakes a solemn presentation, it is also engaging in a solemn undertaking at the same time.
Mr President, I just want to have it confirmed to everyone beyond all doubt that the debate by the Committee on Women' s Rights and Equal Opportunities concerning questions of equality and the Beijing Action Platform will continue at three o' clock. I want this confirmed so that everyone knows about it, because it was previously intended to continue the debate later.
However, we must inform all Members of the European Parliament of this so that everyone can be here by three o' clock.
Yes, I am told it will continue at 3 o'clock.
Vote
Mr President, on a point of order, I have tabled amendments to this because it is a very unusual procedure.
The same thing happened four years ago, which is why I protested in committee.
It was suddenly placed on the agenda without proper documentation and without the proper procedures, and in this amendment we have asked the Commission to bring it forward three months before the end of the budgetary period so that it can be discussed properly in future.
It is about the Petten reactor in Holland, which we are always assured is for medical research.
However, we discovered when looking at the Commission documentation, which as I said was provided very late - in fact, only this week - that it actually deals with military-grade plutonium and research into that.
That is a very serious topic and we need to be properly informed on such research within the boundaries of the European Union.
I have tabled amendments to that effect.
We were not able to discuss it or to debate it either in committee or in plenary, which is why I am drawing it to your attention now.
Mr President, the Committee on Industry agreed to vote on this item only on condition that the Commission would come to the Chamber and give an explanation as to the procedure, and would give us certain assurances.
I see that the Commissioner responsible, Mr Busquin, is in the Chamber.
Commissioner Lamy gave that undertaking.
We will not vote until we have had a statement from the Commission, because of the very strange procedure being adopted.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I appeared before the Committee on Industry on 6 December to present the results of the Research Council of 2 December. I informed the Committee that the ministers had agreed to a new supplementary research programme up to 2003, for the Petten High Flux Reactor in the Netherlands.
The Euratom Treaty does not provide for Parliament to be consulted. However, in accordance with the interinstitutional agreement between this House and the Council, the latter undertook to formalise its agreement only after having requested Parliament' s opinion.
This is the procedure which the Council has followed and in which the Commission is not involved.
However, in view of its desire to keep Parliament informed, the Commission was careful to send its proposal to this House at the same time as to the Council.
I now understand that the urgency with which this procedure has taken place has not actually allowed Parliament to satisfactorily express its opinion on this proposal.
However, the Commission, as the body which will be responsible for implementing this programme, can only hope for its formal adoption.
The importance of this research reactor in the medical field in recent years cannot be ignored.
The Petten High Flux Reactor has produced 60% of the isotopes needed for cancer diagnoses and therapies in European hospitals and other medical centres.
Over six million diagnoses are made annually in Europe due to this work.
In addition, the Community is conducting medical research in this reactor, particularly on the development of new brain tumour therapies.
Finally, I must point out that this programme is being financed by three Member States only, namely the Netherlands, Germany and France. Community financing is not being used.
The High Flux Reactor also receives major financing from the European pharmaceutical industry.
On behalf of the Commission, I can only hope that Parliament will add its support to the Council' s.
Having said this, I am happy to discuss this matter further with this House at a future date.
(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)
Proposal for a Council regulation (EC) apportioning the quantities of grain provided for under the Food Aid Convention 1995 for the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999 (COM(1999) 384 - C5-0258/1999 - 1999/0162(CNS)) (Committee on Development and Cooperation)
(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)
Procedure without debate (Rule 114):
Recommendation for second reading (A5-0080/1999) by Mrs Grossetête, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council regulation on orphan medicinal products (9616/1999 - C5-0182/1999 - 1998/0240(COD))
(The President declared the common position approved)
- Report (A5-0088/1999) by Mr Miranda, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Effects of the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty on current legislative procedures as at 1 May 1999 in the field of development and cooperation (SEC(1999) 581 - C4-0219/1999) Confirmation of first reading: COM(1994) 289 - C4-0090/1994 - 1994/0167(COD) - former 1994/0167(SYN)
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
- Report (A5-0091/1999) by Mr Chichester, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directive 80/181/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement (COM(1999) 40 - C4-0076/1999 - 1999/0014(COD))
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
Report (A5-0097/1999) by Mrs Pack, on behalf of the Parliament Delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text, adopted by the Conciliation Committee, on a European Parliament and Council decision establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education "SOCRATES" (C5-0267/1999 - 1998/0195(COD))
(Parliament approved the joint text)
Report (A5-0084/1999) by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the decision on the verification of credential following the fifth direct elections to the European Parliament on 10-13 June 1999
(Parliament adopted the resolution)
Report (A5-0100/1999) by Mr Virrankoski, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the supplementary estimates to Parliament's budget estimates for 2000
(Parliament adopted the resolution)
Recommendation for second reading (A5-0086/1999) by Mr Rothley, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth Motor Insurance Directive) (14247/1/1999 - C5-0027/1999 - 1997/0264(COD))
The Commission considers that the common position is a pragmatic and efficient solution which solves in a satisfactory manner the problems of most accidents involving two European parties, that is to say, those which occur inside the European Union.
I should therefore like to sum up the Commission's position on the amendments suggested by Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, as follows:
Firstly, the Commission accepts Amendments Nos 10, 11, 12 and 13, which will contribute to clarifying the common position.
Secondly, the main problems concern Amendments Nos 1, 2, 8 and 9, which are designed to extend the directive to accidents between two European Union parties insured by European Union insurance companies which occur in third countries.
These are only a small minority of cases and, for reasons explained during the debate yesterday, these amendments cannot be accepted at this stage and in their present form.
However, the Commission may be able to consider an extension of the scope of the directive which takes account of considerations expressed during yesterday's debate.
However, any compromise should duly identify the third countries to which the directive can be effectively extended.
Furthermore, any solution would have to avoid a conflict with third countries' legislation.
Thirdly, concerning Amendments Nos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, the Commission considers that the draft amendments detract from the legal certainty of the proposal and will work to the disadvantage of the injured parties.
The Commission is therefore regrettably not able to accept them.
Given that conciliation seems unavoidable, the Commission will play a full and constructive role in facilitating a compromise in order to avoid a failure of the directive which would affect all of us and be of considerable detriment to motorists visiting the EU.
Mr President, I would like to draw attention in Amendment No 13 to an important difference between the German text - which of course is Mr Rothley's source text - and the English and I believe also the French versions.
In requiring response to claims, the German text uses the word "unverzüglich", which means "without delay", whereas the English text uses the word "immediately".
That is a significant difference in terms of how the insurance companies have to respond.
I would ask that in Amendment No 13 - and I have discussed this with the rapporteur and he agrees with me - the English text should read "without delay" and not "immediately".
In view of Mr Bolkestein's statement that Amendment No 13 will be accepted by the Commission, I believe this is a very important clarification and I would ask that it be accepted.
As regards the Commission position with respect to the amendments tabled by Parliament I would like to confirm what my colleagues stated during the debate held in this House on Monday evening.
In particular, the Commission can accept in full Amendments Nos 1, 4, 9, 11, 17, 25 and 29.
We can accept in principle the second part of Amendment No 12, provided that the deadline is set at 30 June 2002, and Amendment No 15, on condition that the date for the ban on the use of virgin HCFCs is set at 2008 and that the ban on the use of recycled HCFCs is set at 2010.
We can also accept in principle Amendment No 26, provided that the text specifies that reports be sent to the Commission by 31 March each year, and Amendment No 27, subject to the addition of a reference to the Scientific Assessment Panel under the Montreal Protocol.
Equally, the Commission can accept in principle Amendment No 32, subject to redrafting of the text specifying that any essential use for a substance banned under the Montreal Protocol will also have to be approved by the parties to that Protocol.
The Commission can accept Amendment No 31 in part and in principle, subject to redrafting that makes the text clearer.
The Commission can accept the first part of Amendment No 12 and the part of Amendment No 24 that makes reference to Articles 12, 13 and 14.
Unfortunately I have to say that the Commission cannot accept Amendment Nos 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 30 and 34, the reference to Articles 6, 7 and 11 in Amendment No 24, and the last paragraph of Amendment No 31.
I am very grateful to Parliament.
Thank you, Commissioner, and we are very grateful to you.
(The President declared the common position approved as amended)
Report (A5-0075/1999) by Mr Aparicio Sánchez, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on a proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation (EC) on the distribution of permits for heavy goods vehicles travelling in Switzerland (COM(1999)35 - C5-0054/1999 - 1999/0022(COD))
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
Recommendation (A5-0079/1999) by Mr Bodrato, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the agreement concerning the establishment of global technical regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles ("Parallel Agreement") (10167/1999 - COM(1999)27 - C5-0073/1999 - 1999/0011(AVC))
(Parliament adopted the decision)
Report (A5-0092/1999) by Mr Busk, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down certain control measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries (COM(1999) 345 - C5-0201/1999 - 1999/0138(CNS))
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
Report (A5-0081/1999) by Mr Valdivielso de Cué, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council regulation (EURATOM, EC) concerning the provision of assistance to economic reform and recovery in the New Independent States and Mongolia (COM(1998)753 - C5-0038/1999 - 1998/0368(CNS))
Mr President, I would like to hear the opinion of the Commission on the amendments which we have just adopted.
Mr President. I should like to table an oral amendment with regard to recital C on my behalf and on behalf of the Members with whom we negotiated this joint motion.
The German version says "in acknowledgement of" .
We move that this be amended to "in the knowledge of" .
That is the only oral amendment which I wish to table.
Mr President, I raised this issue before, at the other sitting.
I do not think that we have the correct procedural conditions for voting on this motion for a resolution.
The Rules of Procedure clearly state, in Rule 115, that texts must be made available 24 hours in advance.
This is a decision for which it will be difficult to achieve a balance.
I draw your attention for example to clause f).
The very broad deadlines which follow do not allow some Members to make suggestions for amendments and I would therefore suggest that we postpone the vote on this resolution until tomorrow and that a new deadline is set, which would be an attempt at a compromise, just until the end of the day, for the presentation of proposals for amendment.
But the reality is in fact that this 24-hour rule for the distribution of texts is not being observed in many compromise resolutions.
On very delicate matters such as this one, I think that this is extremely serious and dangerous.
The point you raise is a genuine matter but the House is sovereign in terms of its own deadlines.
The easiest way to resolve this is to put, firstly, the principle of whether we move to vote, to the vote.
I would like to ask, as politely as possible, if we may interpret this vote as an irregular amendment to our Rules of Procedure?
The House is free to set the deadlines and timetables as it wishes.
No it is not!
There are procedural guarantees that have...
(The President cut the speaker off)
We are not having a debate on this.
We are moving to the vote.
We have a joint motion by five political groups.
(Parliament adopted the joint resolution)
The House has made its decision.
We are not discussing it.
(Mixed reactions)
Mr President, I wish to raise a genuine point of order.
Perhaps you could start by telling me under which Rule you wish to make a point of order.
It concerns Rule 51 and also Rules 180 and 181, Annex 6 and Annex 15 which deal with amendments to the Rules of Procedure.
Mr President, the point of order I am making is based on Rules 142 and 180 of the Rules of Procedure.
As President, I believe you have the right to interpret the Rules of Procedure, but certainly not to contravene them, yet your decisions must be complied with.
However, I have not found any Rule that says that it is the House that can decide to derogate from a Rule in the Rules of Procedure.
You asked for a vote on the failure to comply with the deadlines and this procedure is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure.
Let me read Rule 19 to you: "The President shall direct all the activities of Parliament and its bodies under the conditions laid down in these Rules.
He shall enjoy all the powers necessary to preside over the proceedings of Parliament and to ensure that they are properly conducted."
Mr President, I too should like to make a complaint.
I have been trying to make a point of order for the last ten minutes. It is not right of you to lump all of us sitting up here in the last two rows together and to refuse to acknowledge points of order.
I wanted to point out that the German translation was, unfortunately, lost in the commotion.
It makes no sense to turn the public address system in the House up so loud that we can no longer hear anything over our headphones.
That is my first point.
On my second point, I should like to ask that the seating arrangements be changed in future.
If you look at the seating plan, you will see that the four members of the PPE group up here in the last two rows are sitting between other groups.
It is not a very happy arrangement and it should be changed, especially in view of what has happened here today.
Mr Zimmerling, I would like to respond to your point.
Firstly, regarding your point about seating, that is a decision between the groups.
The Presidency has no say over the seating arrangements in the Chamber.
It is the groups who decide the seating.
On your first point, I agree with you, but it was very difficult to tell between genuine points of order and false points of order.
In that event I decided to try to proceed with the session rather than interrupt it.
But you are right, it is difficult to discriminate between different people sitting together.
I apologise for not noticing you earlier.
Mr President. I should like to endorse what Mr Zimmerling has just said.
In the uproar, I withheld my vote on proposed Amendment No 3 of the last resolution, whereas I actually wanted to vote against it.
I would be obliged if you could take note of that.
We will ensure that is changed.
That concludes the vote.
EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Hungary (C5-0190/1999)
Mr President, I asked to take the floor for the explanation of vote on the Hulthén report too.
I did not hear it announced, and in any case, it does not matter, I can have a reply afterwards.
I voted for this attuning of the institutional aspects of the European agreement between the Communities and their Member States on the one hand, and the Republic of Hungary on the other.
I would like to emphasise that this once again shows that, before proceeding to enlarging the European Union, we need to consolidate existing relations between the Member States, even political ones, after which we can consider extending them.
Even here, we find ourselves in the position of having to revise some institutional clauses in order to take into account the enlargement we have already carried out.
Grossetête recommendation for second reading (A5-0080/1999)
Mr President, the Grossetête report on orphan medicinal products responds to an important requirement. It is to be congratulated for providing an immediate although imperfect solution to this problem.
The absence of proper research into these supposedly rare diseases is prejudicial to thousands of patients.
However, this report has several shortcomings.
Firstly, it takes into account only private research and research carried out by the pharmaceutical industry, as if only these were capable of finding therapies to research medicinal products.
No support is given to public research or to non-profit-making bodies which may also be capable of finding therapies.
The second and most important shortcoming is that, although mentioned in the preamble, the text does not provide a solution for one vital problem. This involves research into diseases which are common but for which there is no market for the pharmaceutical industry, in particular diseases affecting people who cannot pay for their treatment.
This is particularly the case with tropical diseases and even malaria and tuberculosis.
No incentives for research into these diseases and no regulations are suggested which is astounding in view of the millions of deaths caused by these diseases.
Parliament and the Commission must consider this issue in the coming months because the lives of millions of people are just as important as the profit of a few businesses.
Mr President, I voted for Mrs Grossetête' s report, just like very many other Members, because it is important to contribute in every way to ensure that cures for rare diseases are found scientifically, even when the pharmaceutical industry is not involved.
Obviously, it is equally important to increase the Community' s commitment to scientific research to find cures for all types of disease.
Indeed, there are many diseases which affect mainly the elderly and pensioners and which, unfortunately, lead to millions of deaths throughout the world: I am referring to respiratory diseases and heart diseases.
We must further increase scientific research into cures for diseases, whatever their nature.
Pack report (A5-0097/1999)
Mr President, I voted for the SOCRATES programme.
The education of citizens in the European Union is very important.
I would like to stress that in this programme it is necessary to provide for those who have completed their compulsory education, therefore workers too, to have access to education, which is important for everybody' s cultural development.
Moreover, I would also like people to take into account the fact that the behaviour of States, which depend on individuals' willingness to learn and, by extension, their culture, has shown that the more educated a population is, the fewer external wars, civil wars and injustices there are in areas where culture has made headway.
I am pleased to see that we have finally emerged from the impasse reached in the discussions between Parliament and the Council on the Socrates II programme. This House has managed to remain very firm on its position during this long conciliation procedure.
The Commission' s basic proposal on the renewal of the Socrates programme dates from May 1998! It has therefore taken over a year and many meetings of the Conciliation Committee to reach agreement on this programme.
Its purpose is to encourage high-quality, general education by supporting cooperation, strengthening mobility and developing the European dimension in all spheres of education. This will supplement the actions of the Member States in this area.
I do not need to remind you of the enthusiasm generated by this programme!
It has developed the educational mobility of hundreds of thousands of European university students and lecturers, headmasters, schoolteachers, pupils and educational decision makers.
In addition, the programme has supported hundreds of transnational projects developing the European dimension and improving the quality of school and higher education, language learning and so on.
The allocation of an additional budget to renew and develop this programme is therefore justified.
This is what Parliament was proposing when it suggested an overall budget of EUR 2 billion for this multiannual programme, whereas the Council was proposing EUR 1.55 billion.
After long negotiations, the Council has agreed to EUR 1.85 billion over seven years.
The Council has also agreed to insert a review clause on the financial consequences of the accession of new Member States. This will allow the financial effects of enlargement to be defined through the codecision procedure, with Parliament having an equal say with the Council on the matter.
We have also agreed on an assessment report to analyse the specific results achieved by this programme.
Furthermore, it is planned to simplify the procedures for selecting projects.
This is essential as it will prevent programmes from being held up for more than two weeks in the event of an objection being made by a Member State.
The original provisions did not specify any time limit which meant that projects could have been delayed for up to two months.
The Conciliation Committee has also achieved a compromise on how the Socrates programme will contribute to the development of a "European dimension in education" rather than a "European educational area" , as Parliament had requested or "educational cooperation" , which was the weaker wording favoured from the start by the Council.
I must say that I deplore the lack of commitment among our ministers.
This is even more incomprehensible as the concept of European citizenship must be developed among our young people and the educational system has a key role to play in this!
The experiences we have had of the Socrates action programme have been extremely good, especially with regard to the Erasmus student exchange scheme.
There have been practical problems with arrangements for those taking up exchange study places that have been organised on an individual basis, problems that we have managed to avoid with the focused student exchange programmes.
We should be encouraging cooperation among the countries of the EU in every possible way in areas that are important for our citizens, by supporting them in their acquisition of the knowledge and information that promotes active citizenship and, what is more, employment.
In my opinion, many European citizens derived immense benefit when Parliament and the Council adopted the conciliation solution.
Hulthén recommendation for second reading (A5-0077/1999)
Mr President, this time I voted against the Hulthén report.
The European Community has the delicate task of deciding how best to proceed as regards making further progress on the one hand and considering the care, health and environment of our great great great grandchildren on the other.
I therefore think that before adopting any measure, we must ascertain, by consulting scientists and experts who are constantly making scientific progress, whether it is right to continue with the ban on certain substances in the future and whether, on the basis of the research carried out by scientists, every step we take really is important.
What I mean is that we have to realise that we are not as good at predicting the future as we unfortunately think we are.
It gives me great satisfaction to welcome this proposal for amending Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 regulating the production and use of substances which deplete the ozone layer.
In my opinion, it was high time for new measures to be adopted to protect the ozone layer given the alarming figures being reported.
The depletion of the ozone layers in the stratosphere is one of the most momentous environmental problems we are facing.
There has been a 6% to 10% decrease in ozone since 1980.
The ozone hole over the Antarctic covered an area of 20 million km2 for over 40 days in 1996, and the depletion of the ozone layer over Scandinavia, Greenland and Siberia reached a record 45% level.
The depletion of the ozone layer has adverse effects on human health by reducing immune defences and increasing skin cancer. It also affects the ecosystem in a particularly worrying way.
We must react as quickly as possible, particularly as we know which substances deplete the ozone layer.
Firstly, there are the hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFCs.
These are used mainly in refrigeration technology and air-conditioning systems, as solvents and in the production of insulating foam. Secondly, there is methyl bromide which is primarily used for soil fumigation to combat pests and plant diseases.
It is classified by the WHO as "highly toxic" .
Thirdly, there are the chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs which are now only contained in refrigeration systems but which were originally used in the production of plastic foam, solvents and aerosol propellants. Lastly, there are the halons which are used in fire extinguishing systems, especially in critical applications, such as aircraft, where there are now harmless alternatives.
We must therefore make every effort to eliminate these substances and to use alternatives.
This is the essence of the proposal under discussion today. However, it is not as forthcoming on the timetable as we might have hoped, as noted by the rapporteur.
This is why amendments have been tabled which, in the main, have been rejected by the Council.
The latter' s attitude is truly regrettable.
The targets proposed by the Committee on the Environment can be achieved because there are alternatives.
For example, the Council proposes that the production of the substances in question should not exceed 35% of 1997 production levels by 2008.
Yet, also with reference to 1997 production levels, the Committee on the Environment demands that production levels be reduced to less than 75% by 2001, less than 55% by 2004 and less than 30% by 2008.
By 2014, the Committee demands a level below 15%, whereas the ceiling proposed by the Council is 20%.
I deplore the Council' s lack of ambition.
This is even more regrettable because it is in an area in which not only the protection of the environment is at stake, but more particularly human health!
The fight against the ever-increasing hole in the ozone layer is of major concern to the people of Europe and the world. The studies provide enlightening reading.
For example, ozone has decreased by 6-10% in 20 years. In 1996, the hole covered an area of 20 million km2 for over 40 days and a record depletion of 46% in the ozone layer over Scandinavia, Greenland and Siberia was recorded.
Yet recent studies show that the efforts made to combat greenhouse gases are far from adequate.
There is no point in compiling figures: these issues are crucial and our health and long-term survival are at stake.
Is there any need to highlight the increasing frequency of cancer and the acute immune disorders caused by this depletion of the ozone layer? This is why we unreservedly support this proposal which sets deadlines for eliminating a range of toxic substances.
To be effective, these measures must deal with two concerns.
Firstly, they must be justified in the eyes of the people. This means that the changes which will occur in our daily life with regard to HCFCs, CFCs and halons must be correctly explained.
We must tell people why and how the EU has come to legislate in this very technical area.
Secondly, we must respect the capacities of our enterprises to adapt.
In the main, these have incorporated the environmental dimension into their product development policies.
However, we must pay specific attention to the small and medium-sized enterprises which, due to their smaller size, sometimes have fewer opportunities or facilities than others for diversifying.
With this regulation, enterprises are being confronted by new challenges which they must meet successfully and dynamically.
Aparicio Sánchez report (A5-0075/1999)
Mr President, I refer to the report by Mr Aparicio Sánchez on the distribution of permits for heavy goods vehicles travelling in Switzerland.
Firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Aparicio Sánchez, on the work which he has done on this matter, and I would like to protest at the fact that we have not received the full text of the agreement between the European Union and Switzerland before the section on the distribution of permits, which is only one part of the whole agreement.
The Group of the Greens and the European Free Alliance has rejected the proposal to reduce the number of permits to be distributed amongst the Member States, which had been proposed by the Group of the European People' s Party.
We support the idea that taxes on heavy goods vehicles should be applied in accordance with the real level of contamination and that this revenue should be invested in the railways and combined rail/road transport and, finally, we agree with the idea of distributing the 91% of the permits which are not distributed according to an equal quota amongst all the Member States, not only in accordance with actual transport needs, but also taking into account the origin and destination, for example, of goods which are passing through Switzerland originating from airports and ports such as Hamburg, Rotterdam, Genoa or Marseilles.
I believe that this would make things easier and make the distribution of permits fairer.
Mr President, I have voted against the Aparicio Sánchez report.
The Treaty remains very controversial within Switzerland.
The chance is great that it will as yet be rejected during a referendum.
In Switzerland, the protection of the environment is high on the agenda and rightly so.
This is why, so far they have opted for the transport of goods by rail and for banning large articulated lorries on transit roads.
This is the only way of preventing more and wider motorways from being built in the Alps and of protecting mountain valley air from further pollution as a result of exhaust fumes.
This has also been Austria' s standpoint in the past.
But since it has become a Member of the Union, the Swiss are on their own.
The Union has exerted a great deal of pressure on a small non-Member State and has, in the process, set aside the internal democratic decision taking in that country.
In this way, more scope was created for a transport method which, if the environment is taken seriously, has no future.
Furthermore, the scale of apportionment is being submitted to Parliament before the latter has been consulted on the agreement itself. In short, this proposal is not yet ripe for discussion and has unacceptable consequences for the environment and democracy in Switzerland.
If I were Swiss, I would vote against in the referendum and as a non-Swiss, I will show my solidarity by voting against.
A few years ago, the people of Switzerland decided to control the heavy goods traffic through their territory.
This kind of traffic is now strictly regulated. This has allowed the people in the Alpine valleys to choose real quality of life and is a positive measure for the environment and for the people.
Far from welcoming this effort to protect the environment, the European Union has only one objective in the bilateral negotiations with Switzerland. It wants to make Switzerland repeal its regulations on the pretext that these form an obstacle to free competition and cause European countries to be treated differently.
Actually, the EU' s goal is for profitability to gain the upper hand over ecological and social considerations.
We examined with great interest the proposals aimed at developing alternative, non-polluting means of transport such as piggyback transport.
In its current state, the report comes out firmly in favour of the use of lorries in Switzerland to the detriment of other means of transport.
As we do not approve of this goal, we will vote against this report.
Recommendation Bodrato (A5-0079/1999)
WTO millennium round
.
(EL) Events at the World Trade Organisation Conference in Seattle confirm the important and justified reactions to the way in which globalisation is being promoted.
The European Union, shaken by the resignation of the Santer Commission during preparations, pursued a policy of seeking compromise with the other major powers which was far removed from the claims of developing countries and the concerns of civil society.
The policy of the European Union needs to be fully reviewed so that it comprises and includes: the democratisation of the World Trade Organisation, support for the family farming model, mechanisms for improving the lot of workers in the Third World without damaging their productivity or trading status, environmental protection, the dissemination of technology to poorer countries, action on the international debts of weaker countries and finally, protection of the multi-cultural identity of the world from the American superpower of entertainment.
I can only agree with what has just been said.
The Seattle fiasco was far from being a victory and we can therefore make only a very modest assessment of these aborted negotiations.
Clearly, we should welcome the emergence of popular concerns in the discussions on international trade. This was due in particular to the mobilisation of the NGOs, trade unions and other associations.
Viewed from this angle, the Interministerial Conference in Seattle was a real turning point in the operation of the WTO.
Previous rounds have been conducted with the greatest discretion between well-informed negotiators taking into account only the trading interests of their countries. However, the next round, whose starting date is still unknown, must now be transparent and include in the debates all trade-related issues, namely social standards, the environment, consumer protection and culture.
In order to cope with these changes, the WTO must be reviewed.
It was not actually formed to manage so many areas but was created by nations to serve their own interests.
The new order requires an assurance that the developing and least developed countries will be able to participate fully. This was not the case in Seattle, hence their legitimate discontent.
The good intentions must now be enshrined in the operation of the WTO.
We must therefore properly examine the review of the WTO.
The European Union must play a leading role in future discussions as it is clear that it was able to act as an essential intermediary between the United States of America and the developing countries.
We must also stress the European Parliament delegation' s initiative to create a parliamentary body within the WTO.
This clearly constitutes just one element of the future reform but is one which will allow the characteristic lack of democracy in the WTO to be tackled.
The European Union must also prepare for other negotiations which will start from next year.
It was very well prepared for the WTO discussions and its position remained very consistent. It therefore did not give any ground on the agenda which it wanted to see adopted, namely a broad agenda going beyond the issues of agriculture and services to which the USA wanted it to be restricted.
However, it is on these two issues alone that discussions must start at the beginning of next year in accordance with the provisions of the Marrakech agreements.
We must therefore be very vigilant with regard to these negotiations which look like being difficult.
A final very positive point is that our negotiator, Pascal Lamy, was outstanding in terms of his clear-sightedness, his sensitivity, his knowledge and his authority.
This is an extremely positive sign for the future.
During the pre-Seattle debates, some of us in this House said that Europe should start by demanding an assessment of the previous rounds and a joint diagnosis with the developing countries, before embarking on a new round of liberalisation.
We were told that time was short and that nothing could delay the start of the Millennium Round.
Yet surely we would have saved time by beginning at the beginning. We should have been slightly more modest and slightly more receptive to the opinions of the people who are not particularly convinced by the results of the WTO or by the results of its work, given the ever-widening gap in development between North and South.
Some of us warned against an impenetrable and over-greedy WTO trying to impose its decisions and its choices on everyone, in all areas, according to its own clearly unjustified criteria.
We warned about the refusal expressed by numerous countries in this respect.
Europe should have started by demanding a revision of the organisation and its operation and a clearer demarcation of its area of competence to ensure respect for other international bodies and conventions, on the environment and social rights in particular. We said that the WTO could no longer simply be followed without understanding the need to place the precautionary principle, cultural diversity, social rights, environmental protection and the reduction of gaps in development at the top of the agenda.
We must now consider these issues.
Seattle was a failure for those who wanted to continue charging blindly towards generalised free trade and global merchandising.
It was a victory for the various branches of the popular movement, similar to the one which rejected the MAI.
A powerful protest movement raised its voice against a WTO which, through its rules and structure, has favoured private interests at the expense of collective interests.
The challenge was not against the existence of rules aimed at organising world trade or the existence of a world trade organisation as such. It was against the fact that the WTO claims to be the source of all rules, the arbitrator of all disputes and the supreme judge of tomorrow' s world.
The social movement formed by many NGOs, civil associations and trade unions has demanded a new type of globalisation, one which is not dominated solely by the logic of blind profit with no regard for people and societies.
Europe must support this movement and this new world public opinion in order to promote a different type of world economic regulation. This should be based on the redistribution of wealth and a new balance between markets and democracy and between free trade and cooperation.
Europe must promote a multi-faceted view of tomorrow' s world. It must encourage the formation of large regional assemblies which are economically and politically integrated and which allow the people to control their future, to influence globalisation and not be subject to the domination of mega-multinationals resulting from mega-mergers.
If Europe fails to become involved in this movement, in this refusal to treat the world like a piece of merchandise and in the hope expressed in Seattle, the only option left to the people who reject this destructive globalisation will be to withdraw into nationalism.
In this respect, the differences of opinion which arose on the subject of biotechnologies and which formed a potential challenge to the protocol on biodiversity are even less acceptable as they in no way corresponded to the European mandate and the position adopted by this House.
A new balance between the international bodies must be developed.
A world environmental organisation must be created with real powers.
The ILO must be made the appeal body for decisions involving basic social standards.
UNCTAD is the most legitimate framework for dealing with the issue of direct foreign investments while respecting the democratic right of countries to legislate on environmental and social matters.
As for the WTO itself, it must be brought under the control of the people. NGOs, trade unions and parliamentarians must be able to exercise this control.
Is it not natural and normal, in view of the ideas and beliefs which we all represent in this House, for the Left and the Right not to be able to completely agree on these issues? What is the point of aiming for convergence at any price when this ends up being artificial and is achieved to the detriment of clarity in our positions?
It would certainly have been preferable for all the left-wing groups to try and speak with one voice, while respecting their plurality, and I am convinced that a united European left, whose voice is needed in Europe, could have been formed on these issues.
Yet I regret the choice of a PPE­PSE­ELDR compromise resolution which allows nothing to be learnt from the lessons of Seattle and which prevents preparations from being made for the future.
I will therefore vote against this text.
I voted against the motion for a resolution for the reasons indicated by Mr Désir.
. (PT) We must draw the right lessons from the lack of results at the Seattle Ministerial Summit, which was supposed to fix the agenda for the "Millennium Round" at the World Trade Organisation.
The failure of the negotiations, which we see as something positive, is not simply the result of chance events that were more or less forced by circumstance.
In good time, we stated the need to provide a balance sheet of the effects of the Uruguay Round.
We even suggested a moratorium on the start of negotiations with a view to being able to produce this kind of balance sheet and to produce a subsequent study of the routes that international trade relations are taking.
We were thinking about the obscurity of the methods that have been followed.
The negative consequences for the world' s poorest countries were - and are - particularly obvious.
We were aware of their concerns and finally, the reason behind them.
We were also aware of the growing concern among world public opinion in general about a form of globalisation that creates inequalities and injustices because it is fundamentally determined by the rules of the market and consequently by the interests that control it.
Today, as we are aware of the failure to which I referred, the study, which we have previously suggested, becomes even more imperative, before any negotiations are restarted.
The WTO must be reformed from top to toe.
It has become crucial to move towards a limitation in the power of its rules.
It is crucial that we build a serious and deep alliance with developing countries, an alliance that respects their right to economic and social progress.
It is also becoming inevitable then to envisage a new trade order - in the context of a globalisation based on progress and solidarity - which respects fundamental political rights, social progress and the environment.
The Bonn Conference was held several days before the WTO Conference in Seattle.
The frantic liberalisation of trade orchestrated by the WTO and the major industrialised countries is in total contradiction to the policies needed to protect the environment.
It is not therefore surprising that, as noted by the motion for a resolution, the Member States of the European Union have not adopted the measures needed to meet their Kyoto undertakings while, at the same time, systematic deregulation is underway in Europe.
The European Union must sort out its own problems first. Although we have regulations on local atmospheric pollutants or even products depleting the ozone layer, there is no regulation aimed at limiting emissions of carbon dioxide.
The opening of rail freight to competition which has just occurred goes against the European development policy needed for this means of transport.
GMO (B5-0313/1999)
Mr President, I voted for the proposal for a resolution and I have nothing against putting a label on genetically modified food products.
However, I would like to ask you if it would not be more correct for the European Union, that is, Parliament, to decide that if these genetically modified products are harmful, their production and trade should be banned, or if they are not harmful, they should be allowed on the market.
Putting them on the market with a label amounts to putting the phrase "harmful to health" on cigarette packets, which does not prevent anyone smoking as they do not attach any importance to what is written on the label.
Mr President, on behalf of myself and the other Labour Members, I want to point out why we voted against today.
It was in no way because of the resolution presented to this Parliament by Mrs Jackson, which we fully supported.
But we have to bear in mind that, although this resolution was only advisory, the Commission had specifically said that it would take careful account of what we said in it.
It specifically said that, whilst under the present modus vivendi this resolution could not have any binding impact upon its actions, it would be taken fully into account.
Regrettably, some Members of this Parliament have not taken up the serious responsibility that the Commission has put in their hands and have not acted sensibly, particularly with regard to Amendment No 4.
This contains labelling proposals for products derived from animals that have been fed GMOs.
This is something which is bound to happen to almost all the animal livestock within the European Union and is happening now.
The consequences would be that the vast majority of meat products in our shops would be labelled as having been derived from genetically modified organisms.
This would not give beneficial information to the consumer but simply cause confusion and create an atmosphere in which the whole issue of genetically modified organisms would take a new and more confusing turn.
It seems to me that, whilst Labour Members are fully in support of the resolution, we have to accept our responsibility and acknowledge the maturity of our position.
- (FR) I voted against the draft resolution on the labelling of foodstuffs containing genetically modified organisms, because its sole aim was to give a green light to the Commission to propose a regulation establishing that labelling indicating that GMOs are present would not be compulsory in the event that a food product contains less than 1% GMOs.
This measure would be contrary to the position adopted by the European Parliament on 14 May 1998, which requested that labelling be compulsory when GMOs are present, regardless of their percentage proportion.
Today, the Council is requesting that the Commission relax the rules on the pretext that, in certain cases, industries cannot prevent a minimal accidental contamination of their products by genetically modified material during transportation or processing.
The problem is a real one, but the solution proposed seems to me to be unacceptable, even on a temporary basis.
The true solution is not to tolerate the absence of consumer information, but rather to increase the efforts to separate genetically modified products from conventional products throughout the production process.
I maintain that labelling should be compulsory, regardless of the quantity of GMOs present in the food, even if it is minimal.
If the producer is in doubt, the following statement should be affixed: "this food product may contain genetically modified organisms" .
I must congratulate the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, and particularly its chairperson, for this motion for a resolution on genetically modified food labelling.
I share the opinion given in this text that current legislation within the European Union on this particularly controversial subject does not meet the requirements of consumer protection and information.
Given the uncertainties which surround GMOs, we must be extremely vigilant and use the precautionary principle where necessary at all stages of our action.
On the subject of genetically modified food labelling, the Council has adopted Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 on foods and food ingredients which are to be delivered as they are to the final consumer, produced in whole or in part from genetically modified soya beans covered by Decision 96/281/EC, and genetically modified maize covered by Decision 97/28/EC.
The specified foodstuffs are subject to the additional labelling requirements laid down in this Regulation.
However, foodstuffs which contain neither protein nor DNA resulting from genetic modification are not subject to these requirements.
The new Commission proposal aims to fill in these gaps.
It covers the accidental contamination of a product by DNA or protein originating from genetically modified soya or maize crops.
Labelling should become compulsory as soon as a component of a product contains more than 1% of this type of substance.
As indicated in the motion for a resolution, the text proposed by the Commission is far from sufficient.
It has an overly sectorial view of the labelling of foodstuffs containing GMOs whereas this issue actually requires a comprehensive and coherent approach.
The European Commission must submit new proposals on novel foods for animals and on foods without GMOs, in order to allow the consumer to choose with full knowledge of the facts.
I totally support the demand that this regulation should contain a review clause accompanied by a deadline so that the maximum tolerance level of 1% can be lowered within 12 months.
The European Commission does not actually give any justification for this figure.
At a time when European consumers have been traumatised by food scares, we must adopt all the measures which can reassure them and give them the means to control their food.
Their confidence in the European consumer protection policy depends on this.
- (PT) As the motion for a resolution presented by Mrs Jackson states, current legislation in this field is fragmentary and inconsistent.
Consumer protection demands extremely accurate and complete information on food, including information relating to new animal feed and to the labelling of GMO-free products.
Moreover, we need to review all the legislation concerning food and products derived from genetically modified organisms in order to be able to guarantee an advance assessment of the risks, with the aim of protecting consumer health.
Thus, it is crucial that the Commission proposes new criteria for the testing and labelling of all new foods and processing aids derived from genetically modified organisms, paying particular attention to products obtained from animals fed with products containing GMOs.
It is also essential that the figure of 1% as the minimum tolerance threshold can be revised after 12 months in the light of relevant scientific and technical studies and opinions.
- I believe that consumers have the right to know when GMOs are used in products in all circumstances; this pertains not only to food consumed by human beings but also animal feed.
This requires clear labelling in all circumstances.
Chechnya
The European Parliament must condemn the savagery of the Russian military attack on Chechnya, which does not strike a handful of terrorists; instead it strikes tens of thousands of women and children who have been forced from their homes in the harsh conditions of a Caucasian winter.
The European Union should support efforts by the OSCE to stop the bombing, repatriate refugees and find a political solution.
We should, however, stress that the European Union, together with the USA, are not without responsibility because they set the precedent in Kosovo, with their disdain for international organisations and for the peaceful settlement of differences and they gave cause for concern with aggressive enlargement to the east which is reflected in the rise of nationalism and violence within Russia.
Climate change
This is a major issue but I will not at this stage repeat all the arguments used to demonstrate its importance.
Instead I will just express my pessimism. Yet I refuse to give up hope because in life there is always room to act and to change things.
Today I will just mention two points.
Firstly, the pre-eminence of money is not acceptable as this allows countries which have the means to do so to buy the right to pollute from poorer countries!
This is unacceptable, immoral and criminal for the future.
Secondly, at a time when we are making great efforts to reduce pollution from new cars, we should be developing a proactive European programme for rapidly eliminating old cars which are often major sources of pollution, but excluding vintage cars.
In this area too, I believe that where there is a will, there is a way.
- I just want to say that I strongly oppose the Liese resolution on climate change as it was approved by the Parliament.
Nuclear energy has been, is and will be a very important part of decreasing CO2 emissions.
That concludes the explanations of vote.
(The sitting was suspended at 1.38 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)
I give the floor to Mr Gollnisch on a point of order.
Thank you, Madam President, I will be as brief as possible.
In a spirit of appeasement and without wishing to cause any controversy, I want to return to the incident which occurred at the end of voting time. This concerned the point of order which I raised based on Rules 180 and 181 of the Rules of Procedure.
What actually happened? A Member pleaded a provision of the Rules of Procedure.
After listening to him, Mr Martin decided to move to a vote of the House.
I am not questioning Mr Martin' s extensive ability to conduct our business swiftly but, like other Members, I am questioning a general practice which seems to completely contradict the letter of our Rules of Procedure and the spirit of the parliamentary institutions.
The Rules of Procedure guarantee the rights of the minority groups.
An amendment should not therefore be made by a majority of Members present but, under the very terms of our Rules of Procedure, according to extremely strict conditions.
An amendment must be made through a proposal which must be discussed in the committee responsible.
This committee must appoint a rapporteur who must produce a report and the amendment, if adopted, can be approved in this House only by a qualified majority consisting of over half the Members.
Even then, this amendment can only apply from the opening of the next part-session.
These guarantees are absolutely essential to ensure the correct operation of this House in particular and any parliamentary institution in general.
I consider that the rather Anglo-Saxon practice, in terms of legal sociology, of submitting perfectly clear provisions of the Rules of Procedure to a vote of a majority of Members present is absolutely detestable.
This is what I would have said to Mr Martin if he had not immediately decided, without even listening to me, that the comment which I wanted to make under Rules 180 and 181 was not a point of order. I must say that he acted in a manner rather lacking in courtesy and which ignored the requirements of democracy, respect for the rights of minorities and parliamentary practice.
In my opinion, Mr Martin contravened the rules governing his position with regard to myself, the Member who spoke previously and other Members who wanted to speak, particularly Mrs Muscardini whom he refused to allow to speak and even threatened with expulsion.
Mrs Lienemann, I wish to protest very firmly but very calmly to you, and to President Fontaine and, I hope, to the Bureau about what I consider to be an abuse of power.
Mr Gollnisch, I take note of your statement which will be examined by the Bureau and which will certainly appear in the verbatim report of proceedings of this House.
Madam President, I would like to draw the Presidency' s attention to the increasingly difficult working conditions as regards Parliament' s computer services.
For two weeks, the computers and their Internet connections have been incredibly slow and, what is more, a lot of Internet sites cannot be accessed.
This is due directly to the system chosen by Parliament' s computer service, that is, to protect the MEPs and screen their access to the Internet, with the upshot being that it has been impossible to connect for a couple of weeks.
Now we have even heard that the Internet connection of the European Parliament' s computer in Brussels will be down from 22 December to 4 January: this means that the Members will, in fact, be prevented from using it, so it will be completely impossible for them to work in their offices in Brussels from 22 December until 4 January.
I think that the Presidency should urgently ascertain the reasons behind this interruption.
I would like to think that such a long interruption can only be caused by very serious, insurmountable problems. However, I fear that it is in fact down to the bureaucratic stupidity of the computer services.
Unfortunately, since there is no other formal way to request verification, I am asking you to do this directly, in this House.
Mr Cappato, your concerns have already been voiced by other Members and even at times by the services.
Your comments will be forwarded to the IT department and the President will also look at this problem with the Bureau.
Beijing Action Platform (continuation)
The next item is the continuation of the debate on the oral questions to the Commission and Council, on behalf of the Committee on Women' s Rights and Equal Opportunities, on the EU follow-up to the Beijing Action Platform.
Madam President, I want to begin with six words which in Danish all begin with an "m" , as in men.
The six words are: muren [der faldt i Berlin] (the Wall which came down in Berlin), markedet (the market), mainstreaming (mainstreaming), magt (power), mæslinger (measles) and menneskerettigheder (human rights).
These words are used in the following question: did the fact that the Wall came down, that the market took over and that we, as a result, seriously accepted the word mainstreaming in Beijing, mean that men stepped - if not a little into the background - then at least a bit to the side, so surrendering a little power and being willing to take care of the children when they have the measles? Does it also therefore mean that human rights are respected so that women, like everyone else, are not discriminated against and exposed to violence?
The answer is no.
I would call attention to this situation because women such as ourselves in the rich countries of the world, that is to say also in the EU, should always remember that those who make the decisions and so who also decide the fate of our sisters in the developing countries, in Kosovo, in the Balkans etc., continue to be men and that there is therefore a risk of the results of our work and of the programmes as a whole not representing women' s wishes and needs in a balanced way.
We still need a discussion about equality and change in the EU but, above all, there must be active efforts in respect of the developing countries and in connection with aid to Kosovo, the Balkans etc. to ensure that women are part of the process and are also involved in development and reconstruction.
The stability pact, which has a shortage of women in its leadership and in which women generally are not involved, shows that there is still a lot to be done.
There is a great need for the men and women in the European Parliament to support their fellow Members of the European Parliament, together with the NGOs, in their endeavours to become involved at all levels of the societies concerned.
I would end by thanking both the Commissioner, for a speech which demonstrated her commitment, and the President-in-Office of the Council.
Madam President, the political groups are agreed on the main question here, as are those of us in the Committee on Women's Rights.
The "Beijing plus five" Conference is of major importance and the European Union has to be very well prepared to take part in the most effective way possible if it is going to have the impact that we want.
As a Parliament, we owe that to all women in the European Union and beyond - in fact throughout the world - in view of all the commitments that were made before Beijing and following it.
We need very clear guarantees that we, as Members of Parliament, will be fully involved and be taken seriously in the planning of the pre-conference before the New York meeting.
As Members of Parliament we are the direct democratic link with the people of the European Union, and the Committee on Women's Rights itself is a direct link with many women's organisations and representatives.
As was said earlier, the preparations for Seattle were a good example of the way this could be done, and I hope we will achieve this.
Mr President, we have in fact observed that, everywhere in the world, women are the subordinated sex.
In view of this fact, this Beijing Action Platform was created.
Here in the European Community too, it has been said that the overarching goal is to promote equality between the sexes in all political programmes and areas of policy.
Scarcely a year ago, we were discussing a report monitoring how the concept of gender mainstreaming had been implemented specifically in the institutions of the EU.
We noted on that occasion that the Beijing Action Platform says that a series of measures must be taken which ought to lead to fundamental changes.
We ascertained in February that this had not happened.
It was noted that there must be clearly defined goals and mechanisms of accountability, but we do not have those either.
It was noted that women ought to be actively engaged in applying and following up the Action Platform. Nor is that happening, either.
It was observed that a proper application of the Platform would also demand changes to the inner dynamics of institutions and organisations, including to such values, forms of behaviour, rules and routines of theirs which damage the position of women.
When we in the Committee on Women' s Rights and Equal Opportunities then looked at this issue, we saw that a lot of small steps forward had been taken in all the institutions of the European Union and that none of these had changed anything overall.
Now we are to see how the Beijing Action Platform has been implemented.
Unfortunately, the European Union is not going to be able to demonstrate any major positive successes, not even if we were to send a delegation of Members of the European Parliament.
What we are going to do is to go to the conference and affirm what was already affirmed in 1995 in Beijing.
I think that is incredibly sad.
We from this Chamber urged the Commission at that time to give priority to overhauling all its advisory and decision-making structures, so as to obtain a proper balance between women and men, and to encourage the Member States to implement fully the Council' s recommendation of 2 December 1996 to the effect that there should be a proper balance between women and men in the decision-making process.
Obviously, this exhortation still stands.
We also urge the Commission to pursue, and to work more intensively on, its strategy aimed at achieving a proper balance between women and men on the staff.
Obviously, this exhortation too still stands.
We urged the EU' s institutions to submit plans for achieving a situation in which equality was practised and pursued in their own particular activities.
This is also a demand from this Chamber which still holds.
To put it briefly, we have not taken more than the tiniest step forward.
This is something we regret but, if we are now to go to New York, we hope that we shall be able to obtain good advice from people there - that is to say, sisters from other countries - and see if anything positive has happened anywhere else.
Madam President, it is regrettable that the EU' s Conference is only taking place after the regional conferences in Europe, especially when it was unfortunately decided at these conferences to only discuss four of the twelve themes included in the Beijing Action Platform.
The four themes were violence, economics, decision making and institutional mechanisms, and this means that one of the most important themes, namely health, will only be discussed at the EU' s Conference.
I therefore hope that, in its preparations for the conference, the Commission will focus strongly upon this subject, and especially upon the issue of reproductive health.
In the Beijing Action Platform, women' s health was singled out as an area in which there is cause for critical concern.
Reproductive health was linked with human rights, while it was stated clearly that, for women, human rights include their right to have control over, and freely and responsibly make decisions about matters related to their sexuality, that is to say to their sexual and reproductive health, too.
The statement from Beijing goes further than that which was employed in Cairo in connection with reproductive rights.
There is a risk, moreover, that this hard-won victory may be jeopardised in the course of the "Beijing plus five" process, even if the pre-conference planning committee has given an assurance that the Beijing Action Platform is not open to renegotiation.
We in the EU ought to be involved in ensuring that this is in fact the case.
The European Parliament' s representative group concerned with reproductive health has repeatedly called attention to the connections that exist between the fight against poverty, women' s equality and reproductive health.
We have emphasised that reproductive health is in fact a prerequisite for the fight against poverty and is to be conceived holistically.
It is also necessary to tackle the question of HIV/Aids.
The proportion of HIV-infected women and, therefore, of the number of cases of the virus being passed from mother to child are steadily increasing.
I therefore hope that the Commission can today assure me that reproductive health will be given a prominent place at the EU' s Conference and that, in one way or another, the European Parliament will be able to participate in the New York Conference, just as it did in the arrangements for the WTO negotiations where we were in fact represented.
Madam President, Beijing 1995 was a special event.
Never before did so many countries, NGOs and journalists take part in a UN Conference.
The Beijing Declaration and the Beijing Action Platform were adopted by 192 government delegations.
The Beijing Action Platform serves as a major catalyst worldwide and in all areas policies have been tightened up, reviewed and renewed.
Despite this, the problems have not yet been solved and the emancipation policy has not reached completion.
In the ' 70s, the European Community and the United Nations placed the topic of 'women' on the map for national governments.
Attention has now waned.
It is therefore up to Europe to generate renewed interest.
I hope that we can accelerate implementation with the same energy and power which typified Beijing at the Beijing plus five Conference in June 2000 in New York.
I strongly urge the EU to maintain the momentum and keep the interests of women at heart internationally.
In this context, I would like to raise the following questions, Madam President.
Firstly, the PPE deems the importance of NGOs and of women' s movements extremely high.
They carry a special significance and strength by their activities at grass-roots level.
Decisions do not take effect automatically.
There are always inspectors required to ensure that decisions are transposed into policy and that policy is adopted.
NGOs play a key role in the mobilisation of the political will to transpose policy.
In most countries, the national emancipation support networks are also formed by the government.
Hence my question: how does the Commission see the role of NGOs, including women' s movements, and the concerted action between these and the national government networks?
Secondly, a European preparatory meeting had been planned for December 1999.
This has now been postponed to February 2000.
There is a great deal of confusion about this at the moment.
The confusion which pervaded the previous preparatory conference should be avoided.
Hence my second question: could the Commission indicate which NGOs will be invited and what will be expected from them?
Thirdly, there is an ECE Conference in Geneva in January. The results of Beijing will once again be tabled there.
Could the Commission give an indication as to what the EU' s input will be in this ECE Conference in relation to the Commission' s opinion of how much we have achieved, what hurdles still need to be overcome and what action is required?
Finally, my fourth question concerns one of the results of Beijing that agreements have been reached regarding gender mainstreaming.
This means the inclusion of emancipation objectives and the implementation thereof in regular policy.
My question is: can the Commission indicate what it intends to do to 'mainstream' the results of Beijing and those of New York in the fullness of time, in European policy?
Madam President, Commissioner, without doubt the fifth UN Conference on women held in Beijing was an important step on the road towards equality of the sexes, culminating as it did with the surprising agreement by the representatives of all the UN countries to a joint worldwide platform for action.
Five years on, we need to take stock, evaluate any progress or reversals which have been made in the twelve areas of action, take any corrective action needed and lay down policies which will allow us to achieve the objectives established in Beijing.
The European Union, or rather the European Parliament, must not just be present during this procedure; it must make a decisive contribution, both to the evaluation of the five years of action and to future plans.
It is a fact that, in comparison with other parts of the world, such as Afghanistan and Kuwait, where millions of women are still deprived of fundamental human rights, women in Europe lead a privileged existence.
It is true that a great deal of progress has been made in all areas in the Union and, if we look back at our achievements during the 20th century, we should perhaps be celebrating the huge victories which women have achieved.
To mention just one of the many victories: education, where women surpass men, both in numbers and in achievement, at almost every university in the European Union.
The European Parliament and the Union have made a decisive contribution in promoting equal opportunities.
The application of the Amsterdam Treaty, action programmes and mainstreaming have strengthened European policy significantly.
However, despite the progress made, serious problems of inequality and discrimination against women still need to be resolved: higher unemployment, violence, sexual exploitation and, above all, the exclusion of women from the centres of policy and decision making.
In view of the forthcoming UN Conference in New York, we need to speed up the European Union' s preparations if we really want to make a fundamental contribution to pre-conference planning and to the conference itself which is commensurate with the prestige of the Union.
I was pleased to hear the Commissioner and the Presidency representative this morning express their intention and commitment with regard to the organisation of the European conference and participation in the pre-conference planning for the Beijing plus five Conference in New York.
Madam President, I am to give the speech which should have been made by my fellow Member, Geneviève Fraisse. She joins the protests made by Mrs Theorin this morning.
I am pleased that the European Commission feels responsible for following up the Beijing Conference.
Yet we need precision in order to ensure effectiveness.
The same applies to the situation of women today, as much in terms of equality - education, citizenship and employment - as freedom - habeas corpus, the fight against violence and the trading of women.
We must therefore be precise.
In order for this European meeting to be successful and not just the scene of some fine words, the following conditions must be met.
A European conference may be held in parallel with a UN meeting if, and only if, this works to produce an internal European policy and demonstrates a common determination within the UN dynamic.
The Finnish Presidency must be thanked for having identified nine indicators for assessing the access of women to decision making.
Would it not be judicious to generalise these quantitative methods? Gender-based statistics must be provided in all areas.
Additional indicators must also be identified to measure the situations of inequality in fields other than politics.
Could we not also comprehensively assess the means which Europe, as such, has had for several decades to develop equal opportunities, particularly in terms of compatibility between family and professional life, and to combat all violence against women? Without any common indicators, no serious assessment can be made of the measures taken by the Member States.
The conference in February 2000 could have this specific and formative policy as its objective.
The future enlargement of Europe, confirmed by the Helsinki conclusions, poses the problem of the applicant States respecting the requirements of developing equal opportunities and promoting women' s freedom.
In these countries as elsewhere, the role of the NGOs, particularly since Beijing, has become indisputable.
The Commission must be a capable participant in the work undertaken by these associations.
Madam President, the 1995 World Conference on Women has given the worldwide fight for freedom and equality for women a shot in the arm.
I would like to briefly outline three milestones.
Firstly, the right to sexual self-determination has been recognised as an inherent component of the human rights of women.
Secondly, it has been established that the argument of cultural identity cannot justify the on-going suppression of women.
Thirdly, it has been stated that women' s policy is not about fancy things for women and a place in the sun, rather the gender dimension should be added to all policy-making decisions.
These achievements, most of which I have listed, must be translated into concrete action.
National governments carry most responsibility here and their commitment must be assessed. But hang on.
What about the European Union?
How is the common position on the follow-up to the World Conference on Women determined? How can the European Parliament carry out its task in this respect?
The conference which the European Commission will organise next February can only help form opinion, it cannot determine policy.
Under the rules of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, under which, indeed, the Member States coordinate their action in international organisations, initiative and power of decision lie entirely with the Council, in practice a small group of specialist officials who have the natural tendency to focus on their own mutual problems.
I dare say this because I belonged to such a set-up myself for years, namely during the Beijing period.
Such bodies move in the twilight zone of secret diplomacy.
Openness and political responsibility, however, should be top of the agenda.
This is why I ask the Presidency, by referring to Article 32 of the Treaty on European Union, to brief Parliament as fully as possible, but mainly also to consult Parliament in time.
"In time" in this case means in any event before the so-called "preparatory conference" , to be held between 3 and 17 March in New York, because we are probably too late already for the ECE Conference in January.
The Committee on Women' s Rights and Equal Opportunities of this Parliament has the explicit responsibility to monitor the follow-up and implementation of international agreements, such as the Beijing Action Platform.
This Committee cannot wait to give its input.
It would preferably do this on the basis of tangible, current information and in a constructive dialogue with the Council and the Commission.
Talking to a brick wall is, after all, not very productive.
This is why I somewhat regret that, because of the strange set-up of this debate, we are having to make do without the Finnish Presidency.
Madam President, here, at the end of the debate, I just want to say that I do not think it has been negative but that it has been very realistic indeed.
It has been clear-sighted, and we have shown where the problems lie.
There is a clear consensus between the Commissioner, who is dealing with these questions, and Parliament' s Committee on Equality.
The Commissioner has emphasised Parliament' s position and Parliament' s important role and said that the action plans are inadequate, that these must be developed further and that a clear political stance is required.
I believe we should see this as being very important indeed.
May I just warn against the Commission and the Council confining themselves to just four areas when they now produce the concrete programme following the Beijing Conference.
I say this after 20 years' experience of the United Nations.
As soon as you begin to unpick any of the twelve points we laid down in Beijing, you have also begun to dismember the whole of the Beijing document.
It is therefore incredibly important that the EU should have a very clear policy and that all twelve areas of policy carry due weight.
It is all twelve areas which have to be established and for which action plans have to be prepared, and not merely three of these.
Otherwise, the whole of our Beijing document might be forfeited.
I want to say as well that we have also quite rightly demanded that it should be possible for the Committee on Equality and the women in Parliament to also be present at the conference which is to take place in New York in June.
Just as representatives from Parliament participated in the WTO Conference, the women in Parliament ought also to be involved in this one.
Allow me finally to turn to the men here. Do not see this as being something especially for the women.
Do not look askance and with irritation at the fact that women are raising those problems which, right around the world, are problems faced by women.
See it as an important task for you, as our male colleagues here in Parliament and as our male colleagues in the Commission, to accept your responsibility and ensure that these questions are raised to such a high level that they also become real issues in the national parliaments and the national governments and in the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council.
Madam President, I should like to thank all the lady MEPs who took part in this debate.
There is no doubt that the Beijing Conference continues to have a widespread effect, as we see every year.
I think that, when we make our first evaluation in June, apart from the negative conclusions which we will draw on the basis of statistics, numbers and data on the situation of women at worldwide level, we shall also draw some positive conclusions on several developments worldwide.
I shall try to reply specifically to all the questions which have been asked.
Following the Beijing platform and the commitment of the 189 countries to the platform, there have been three levels of action as far as our region, the European Union, is concerned: first, at Member State level, secondly, in the form of political strategy at European Union level and, thirdly, at the level of European Union policy vis-à-vis developing countries.
Conclusions have already been drawn at all three levels and the planning will shortly be presented.
All three are particularly important.
However, I wish to stress, as certain speakers have said, that the commitments to the Beijing platform are mainly binding on the Member States, they are mainly binding on governments, with the European Union coming in at a second level with a horizontal strategy.
What are we doing and what procedures have been programmed? We have three events on the agenda before the conference in June: the Economic Commission for Europe, which will meet in January, the European conference on the Beijing issues, which will be held in February, and the meeting of the Women' s Committee of the UN, which will be held in March.
We must combine these events in the best possible way if we are to have an efficient presence in June.
First, as far as the regional conference is concerned, it is most important that we arrive at specific, unanimously accepted results which will be discussed and taken into account at the February meeting of the European conference.
Who is attending the European conference in February? First, the European Parliament, of course, then the non-governmental organisations and, as the question was asked, allow me to say here that the women' s movement and non-governmental organisations have played, and continue to play, an exceptionally important role and have acted as a real driving force behind the policies formulated at European level, together of course with various services from the Commission, the Member States and the Presidency.
During the preparations - you already know about the committee to which I referred - the twelve areas of interest selected at Beijing will be discussed.
As Mrs Theorin pointed out, we are not able at this stage to select four or five areas, given that we are required by the Beijing platform to give equal priority to the twelve areas but we could, of course, focus our attention on the fifth action programme when we discuss the selection of priorities at European level.
These twelve individual areas of interest will be examined in the following groups under the general heading of "mainstreaming" : gender issues in development policy, in other words, how sexual equality intervenes in all cooperation agreements between the European Union and developing countries, the involvement of women and human rights.
There will be a horizontal and vertical link between these groups and the twelve Beijing areas of interest.
The results and the extent to which we agree and take a common European Union position at the June conference is vitally important.
Since certain parallels have been drawn with Seattle, I should like to remind the House that the institutional framework is not the same, nor does the Commission have the same institutional role in New York and at the Beijing Conference as it did in Seattle. However, provided that the political will is there, nothing prevents the Presidency, the Commission and the European Parliament from collaborating and joining forces during the six months up to June.
I, of course, give my word that the Commission will not only collaborate continuously and provide a continuous flow of information but will also accept proposals and studies from the European Parliament up to the very last day. I believe that by June we will be able to find the final formula which, as you know, is not based on a Commission decision or even really on a Council decision, because it is a matter which comes under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation and participation is at national level.
However, I repeat that there is the political will and the political conditions are in place for us to proceed jointly, given that we have totally concurring views on numerous matters.
Finally, I should like to make one last comment: movements, political initiatives and campaigns can often play an extremely important role.
I would like to single out the last initiative of the Women' s Committee on the strategy against violence.
It is interesting how a simple movement, a simple idea can take on huge proportions and catch the public imagination.
I think that the European Parliament could act in this area and the Commission is ready and waiting to support such campaigns or initiatives at worldwide level, provided that they relate to the matters to which you have already referred.
Thank you, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 10 a.m.
Ban on British beef and veal
The next item is the Commission statement on the follow-up to the French Government' s decision to uphold the ban on British beef and veal.
I would like to begin with a word of apology on behalf of my colleague David Byrne.
Unfortunately, owing to the cancellation of the morning flight from Brussels to Strasbourg due to exceptionally adverse weather conditions, he is not able to be here in person.
I will therefore speak to you instead on the important issue of the Commission action in relation to the continued refusal of France to lift its ban on imports of British beef.
Commissioner Byrne will, however, be arriving in Strasbourg later this afternoon, and will be in a position to take any questions when he speaks on the draft regulation on the labelling of beef products.
He will also be happy to meet interested Members of Parliament individually or as a group to discuss the issue further.
In these unavoidable circumstances I am only in a position to deliver Commissioner Byrne's script on his behalf.
The Commission yesterday, as you are already aware, adopted a decision to issue a formal reasoned opinion to the French authorities over their continued refusal to lift their national restrictions on imports of British beef.
The French authorities have five working days to reply to this letter.
In the absence of a decision to lift the ban, the case will be filed with the European Court of Justice.
The failure to resolve the dispute in an amicable manner is a huge disappointment to the Commission.
I think it fair to add that it is a disappointment to all the parties concerned, given the huge efforts that went into finding a solution without recourse to legal action.
The Commission has always made clear its preference to solve this dispute without legal intervention.
This approach is in the interests of all parties.
I would add that it is especially in the interests of the parties most affected - British beef producers.
The reality is that legal action to lift the ban is likely to be a lengthy process, very much a second-best solution as compared to an amicable agreement.
The Commission's efforts focused on establishing that the original decision to lift the ban on UK beef posed no threat to public health.
The decision was based on a series of important safeguards which were firmly rooted in scientific advice.
They also followed the orientations of the European Council in Florence in June 1996 on the procedures, timetable and safeguards required to lift the ban.
Unfortunately, the French authorities, on the advice of their National Food Safety Authority, AFSSA, were still unprepared to lift their national restrictions.
The Commission took the precaution of referring to its Scientific Steering Committee these concerns for an opinion on whether they called into question the decision to lift the ban and the terms of the date-based export scheme in particular.
The unanimous opinion of the SSC that there is no need to review the decision to lift the ban on UK beef exports was hugely reassuring in this respect.
Unfortunately, however, this reassurance did not prove sufficient to allow the French authorities to lift their ban.
Efforts have subsequently focused on additional reassurances and clarifications on the provisions of the date-based export scheme.
These efforts led to the agreement between the UK, France and the Commission on a memorandum of understanding on 23 November, which provided the reassurances and clarifications required.
It is fair to say there was an expectation that this memo would prove to be the key to lifting the French embargo.
The opinion of AFFSA on the memo, however, again did not prove sufficient for the French authorities to lift the ban.
On 9 December they officially informed the Commission of this decision.
This, in turn, has led the Commission to adopt a reasoned opinion yesterday.
There have been criticisms that the Commission's efforts to resolve the dispute in a diplomatic manner were a waste of time and effort.
The argument, instead, is that the Commission should have immediately resorted to legal action.
These criticisms are unfounded, and are indeed dangerous.
As I pointed out earlier, they are especially contrary to the interests of the most affected party, British beef producers.
These criticisms also ignore the very determined action the Commission has taken to uphold its treaty obligations to ensure compliance with Community law.
In effect, the Commission has adopted a carrot and stick approach: the carrot was the very intensive effort to bring the parties together and to get them to agree a solution through negotiation.
The stick, on the other hand, was to take action when it was clear that these efforts were not proving sufficient.
It is useful to bear in mind that the Commission's letter of formal notice issued on 16 November allowed a period of only two weeks for reply, rather than the normal two months.
Similarly, the reasoned opinion adopted yesterday also allows five days for reply rather than the normal two months.
In effect, therefore, there has been no slippage in the legal calendar in ensuring compliance with the decision to lift the ban on exports of UK beef.
The intervening period has also served to provide much-needed reassurances and guarantees that the original decision to lift the ban was soundly based.
In particular it has established that the scientific basis for lifting the ban was sound.
I am sure that if we are ever to find an amicable solution to this dispute, which I hope can still be found, it will have been due to the efforts which took place over the past several weeks.
Thank you for your attention.
Once more let me apologise on Commissioner Byrne's behalf that he is not here in person, but he will be available to take questions later.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Madam President, I should like to make a point of order and table a motion.
We in the European Parliament have asked time and again for the debates held here to be held in the presence of the competent Commissioner.
We understand that Commissioner Byrne has been held up by transport problems and that Commissioner Monti has read the Commission' s opinion.
However, I consider it absolutely necessary that the competent Commissioner should hear what Members have to say before being given the opportunity to reply, since otherwise the debate which we wish to hold does not in fact take place.
I should therefore like to move that we adjourn this debate and begin the debate on competition, as suggested, so that the Members concerned with the beef question can speak in the presence of the competent Commissioner.
I therefore move that this debate be adjourned now and that we proceed to the next item on the agenda.
Madam President, I should like to add to that.
I thank Mr von Wogau for his motion on a point of order.
We have learned that the Council passed a decision yesterday evening. I deliberately repeat: passed a decision to postpone labelling for one year, before Parliament has formed an opinion or made a decision on the matter.
I move that the Council representative also be present at the debate.
Madam President, it distresses me greatly to have to contradict Mr von Wogau and it perhaps distresses me even more to have to contradict Mr Goepel, but let me take the formal part first.
The formal part is that we agreed and decided on the agenda this morning.
Mr von Wogau, you are a great stickler for procedure, even more so than I. I am perhaps on occasions somewhat more relaxed, which is why I think it is important that we keep to this agenda.
The second argument is that, apart from the fact that Mr Byrne will probably arrive at any moment, we should be clear Mr von Wogau - and this is a fact, as you well know - that nothing which we say today will come as a surprise to Mr Byrne.
We can always ask Mr Byrne questions afterwards.
As to the first part of what you said, Mr von Wogau, I would ask you to have a little respect for Members' engagements, i.e. the engagements of those of us who have perhaps put off other things in order to be present here and the engagements of other Members who have not yet had time to prepare for a different debate.
Now to what Mr Goepel said.
Mr Goepel, as to what the Council is doing, allow me to say to you quite plainly that that is the second part of the debate which is to follow, namely the report by Mr Papayannakis on beef labelling.
What the Council is doing is a matter of indifference to me.
This Parliament has the right of codecision on this proposal.
This Parliament has the right to decide alone.
If the Council thinks it should be present, fine.
If the Council does not think it should be present, so much the better, because we shall take the decision here which we consider to be right; if necessary, we may even go to the European Court of Justice and then decide.
Then we shall consider how to deal with the Council.
I do not need a Council representative here in order to tell them that I think they are undemocratic.
We can say that afterwards in the debate.
I think it is important that we proceed with the agenda as it now stands.
Madam President, I am more distressed to have to disagree with Mrs Roth-Behrendt than she is to have to disagree with Mr von Wogau.
There are precedents for delaying the debate for some period of time.
Commissioner Monti will remember that on one occasion in the last Parliament he had to come in when a debate had already begun, because of transport problems.
These are problems endemic in our meeting in Strasbourg in the way we do.
It is a good week for this point to be brought to our attention.
I would like to support the suggestion that this full debate takes place in the presence of Commissioner Byrne.
I mean no disrespect whatsoever to Commissioner Monti, but Commissioner Byrne has been the honest broker in this terrible dispute from day one.
We need to have him here when we attempt to reach some conclusion on it.
I too believe that we should not hold this debate without the relevant Commissioner here.
It is far too important.
We want the debate settled, we want the Commissioner to act, but we want him to act having heard all of the debate and not on the basis of information passed on second or third hand.
We must adjourn the debate until the Commissioner is here.
Madam President, I would just like to say that this question of the labelling of beef, in political terms, is one of the most sensitive issues in relation to agricultural and agro-food policy.
Therefore, it is unthinkable to hold a debate on such a delicate issue without the Commissioner responsible being present.
It makes no sense!
It is a question of respect for the issue and for European consumers.
I support the appeal made by Mr von Wogau but I would also like to elaborate on the request made by Mr Goepel, because he has made a very interesting constitutional suggestion, namely, that the representative of the Council should speak in connection with the Papayannakis report.
I would like to support that and I hope that the Council, which, under the Finnish presidency, has professed to be as open, transparent and communicative as possible with the Parliament, takes up this suggestion.
Last night, I understand, the Agriculture Council not only adopted a position on the Papayannakis report resolution, which it was rather beforehand in doing - but it also, I believe, altered the legal basis of the text on which Mr Papayannakis drew up his report.
We would like a full explanation of that, but it makes sense to have it from the Council, which carried out this decision, rather than from the Commission, which was, I suppose, only a spectator.
So please could we put off this debate on the French beef ban, and could we also make sure that the Council speaks in the Papayannakis report?
Madam President, it is never too late, as they say.
I have here the text of a decision made by the Agriculture Council.
The Council is therefore making decisions and, apparently, deftly transferring the responsibility for these to Parliament' s Committee on the Environment.
This is very interesting.
We had a rather confused debate in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and we are having this debate here today.
The Council claims that, as soon as we wanted to make amendments, it distanced itself and went down another route, in league with the Commission.
It even says in its decision that it believes that the Commission has another proposal to make which will circumvent Parliament and lead the Commission and Council to decide on their own.
All this appears in the document which I have here.
We clearly need an explanation because you could say that the debate on my report is pointless if the Council is allowed to decide what it wants.
The Council should therefore be here.
I am not sure whether we have the power to force its presence.
The possibility of an agreement certainly exists, but we need the Council here in order to find out.
I have a proposal to make.
I have just learnt that Commissioner Byrne will not be here for at least another half an hour.
We therefore have two options. We either continue the debate started in his absence or, and this is what I suggest, we adjourn the item we have started to discuss until 9 p.m.
I will put this proposal to the vote and everyone must decide with full knowledge of the facts. Either we keep to the agenda or we resume at 9 p.m. to debate the Council' s statement.
Mr Papayannakis, your report will, of course, follow this statement which will therefore inevitably be later this evening.
Madam President, you are holding my nightlife to ransom! However, as it is for a good cause, I accept.
I am only suggesting 9 p.m. because it is traditional. I believe the Rules of Procedure state that when a joint discussion involves three reports, as is the case with the von Wogau, Rapkay and Jonckheer reports, we must continue to the end of the discussion.
I am in no way trying to cut short the debate, but I must ensure that our Rules are respected.
As my proposal seems to have caused as many reactions as if I had not made one, I suggest that we resume the points of order.
Madam President, I take exception to the fact that a Commissioner arrives late for a meeting in Parliament, never mind where it takes place.
We did not choose to be here in Strasbourg.
In my opinion, if he is half an hour late, the debate should start then.
I find it in any case unacceptable that he is late.
I would like to address my second point to Mrs Roth-Behrendt of the socialist group who referred to the fact that we should start as we would all be making similar points in any case.
I am from the Group of the European People' s Party.
We are not a record which you play over and over again.
We hold original views and our input will bear witness to the fact that our ideas are clear and that we act on current situations.
Madam President, I fear that we may waste a great deal of time on this debate on a point of order.
I moved, quite clearly, to adjourn this debate and to resume it after the debate on competition.
We have heard at least one speaker in favour and one speaker against.
We know the arguments. I should now like to move to put it to the vote.
Madam President, I raised a point of order some time ago.
According to the original agenda, the competition reports should now follow.
The order of this agenda was specifically amended by the Conference of Presidents in order to give Commissioner Byrne the opportunity to attend.
That was why the original agenda was amended on Monday.
As he is not yet here, I urge the House to deal with the competition reports.
Commissioner Monti has been here for some time. He can deal with Mr Byrne' s reports in this regard.
I therefore support the motion.
Ladies and gentlemen, I must inform you that it was the Conference of Presidents which suggested the change to the agenda.
This change was approved by Parliament on Monday.
It is therefore as a result of this vote that we have this agenda for today.
I think if we go on for a few more minutes then these points of order will get Mr Byrne here in time for the debate.
If we have to adjourn and take up another subject, we should have an urgency debate on transport to Strasbourg!
It is quite intolerable that this House should be messed around by Commissioners who are unable to come here to respond to debates, particularly when, as we have already heard, the agenda has been changed to suit their convenience.
That is not acceptable, and with the greatest respect to Commissioner Monti, he is not in a position to answer this debate because, for example, when I asked Commissioner Byrne in the Committee on the Environment whether it would be possible not to waste a lot of time on legal procedures but simply go straight to a legal injunction, he said that would be possible.
That was not in the statement we heard from Mr Monti just now.
I want Mr Byrne to be here to explain the position with regard to injunctions.
That is not possible if he is not here.
We should adjourn - if we have to move beyond the competition debate that is fine, but we should not have to wait until 9 o'clock because of the incompetence of whoever is responsible for the travel arrangements of Commissioners.
Madam President, if this is a question of legal competence, then Mr Monti is as competent as Mr Byrne to give the Commission' s collectively decided opinion.
If this is a question of scientific competence, then Mr Byrne is as incompetent as any scientist who knows nothing about prions.
We know nothing about these particles.
If this is a question of good sense, then it involves French consumers not wanting the few kilos of British meat in question and discussions will make no difference.
So this must be a question of psychoanalysis.
The British Members are upset.
The quicker they are able to vent their feelings, the quicker we can start the psychotherapy by listening to them and the quicker they will be able to calm down.
We should therefore start the debate straightaway in order to calm them.
Mr Byrne has left the airport - I assume that is Strasbourg airport - and is on his way here.
Therefore under Rule 146, 32 Members can set the specific time and date when this debate should resume.
I am therefore proposing that the debate should resume at 4.45 p.m. today, and I would ask 32 Members to support this.
If they do, then that ends the matter until 4.45 p.m.
I suggest that you decide on the proposal which has just been made.
Do 32 Members support this proposal?
(Parliament gave its assent) (The sitting was suspended at 4.15 p.m. and resumed at 4.45 p.m.)
Ban on British beef and veal (continuation)
The next item is the continuation of the debate on the Commission statement on the follow-up to the French Government' s decision to uphold the ban on British beef and veal.
Mr Langen, I acknowledge my mistake.
You can put it down to the fact that this is the first time I have acted as Vice-President.
I should have put it to the vote.
However, it appears that the House would probably have confirmed the decision which was taken.
Nevertheless, I apologise for this flouting of the Rules of Procedure and I will try not to do this again.
Commissioner Byrne considers that, as his statement was read by Commissioner Monti, we can immediately start the debate at the end of which he will answer any questions.
Madam President, it is now 18 weeks since the European Commission ordered the lifting of the ban on British beef; 18 weeks during which time France and Germany have prevaricated while blatantly defying the law; 18 weeks during which naive attempts at appeasement by the Commission and the hapless UK government have been rebuffed in circumstances which have caused deep humiliation to both; 18 weeks during which British beef farmers have continued to suffer catastrophic losses, exacerbated by the titanic efforts of the French government to blacken the good name of British beef internationally.
The time for dithering and delay is now past.
In the face of clear evidence that the French government has engaged in a devious game of cat-and-mouse with the Commission and the UK government and clearly never had any intention of removing the ban on British beef from the outset, they must now be held to account.
They must be made to answer in the European courts and the procedure must be fast-tracked to ensure compensation is paid to the British beef industry, not only for the loss of trade to France, but also for the loss of our trade worldwide as a result of the damage done to the reputation of our high-quality products.
Can I also deal with the red herring that Prime Minister Jospin has introduced into this debate.
He claims that last October he made an offer to Prime Minister Blair to lift the ban on grass-fed Scottish beef.
Let me say this to Prime Minster Jospin: all British beef is safe.
It has been judged safe by the European Commission and by the Scientific Steering Committee.
Under the chairmanship of a French scientist, that committee unanimously approved the safety of British beef and unanimously rejected the French position.
It is preposterous, therefore, for Mr Jospin to endeavour to drive a coach and horses through the European directive and the British date-based export scheme by introducing his own conditions.
It is Mr Jospin who is in the dock and it is not for those who break the law to attempt to revise the rules.
Can I also ask the Commission what action they intend to take against Germany?
The German Government has been content to hide behind the French coat-tails throughout this dispute, blaming the intricacies of their federal system of government for the delays in lifting the ban in Germany.
I would remind this House that the German Government was able to introduce the ban on British beef in a matter of hours.
It is therefore quite unacceptable that they continue to apply this illegal ban 18 weeks following the directive ordering that the ban should be lifted.
On my final point I would point out to this House that on an issue of this crucial importance there are very few Socialist Members sitting here taking part in this debate - and that is a disgrace.
Madam President, at this moment in time, Socialist members have been debating BSE far longer than most of you and, in all events, far longer than Mr Stevenson, but that is just a brief rejoinder to the last comment.
As chairman of the last BSE committee, I have probably spoken more frequently in this House and in other fora on BSE than most of you since 1996/97.
I believe therefore that many of you will already have heard much of what I have to say here today from me on previous occasions.
Permit me nonetheless to summarise the background to the lifting of the export ban.
The lifting of the export ban on British beef followed long scientific debate, long reports and numerous inspection visits to the United Kingdom and was approved by this Parliament.
We now have a legal situation where there is an internal market and free movement of goods.
Only where there is scientifically substantiated and provable cause for concern can the free movement of goods be excluded and suspended in order to protect consumer health.
This applies to all Member States and it also applies in other respects.
However, as this scientific proof always takes the form of an up-to-date expert opinion based on the information available, we must all take an interest in the latest scientific knowledge.
Like most of you, I am no scientist.
I must refer to the expert opinions of the scientists and I am interested in any new information which may cast fresh light on the situation.
I was therefore most interested and curious to know what new information was available. Unfortunately, no new information has come to my attention either from France and other Member States or - and this remark is addressed directly at Mr Stevenson - from Germany.
The reaction is therefore quite clear and unequivocal.
Commissioner Byrne and the Commission have chosen the only correct reaction.
Member States call time and again for legal security in the European Union, Member States call time and again for everyone else to respect the law when their own interests are at stake.
And so there should be no exceptions for them either and there should be no arbitrariness in the European legal systems.
Nonetheless, it would have been nice if the Commission had made the BSE test evaluated several months ago compulsory, i.e. if they had made it a duty incumbent upon all Member States.
That would have given some Member States additional security and additional reassurance and all the Member States would at last obtain a clear and unequivocal picture.
Then we would finally know exactly what the BSE situation is.
My question therefore to Commissioner Byrne is this: when will we have a proposal on compulsory BSE testing in the Member States? Apart from BSE testing, we also need a record of provenance.
We shall shortly be debating the Papayannakis report on beef labelling.
This, too, would simplify and improve the situation of the Member States and help to protect consumers.
Here too, and I say this loud and clear, the Member States have been dragging their feet.
They have been dragging their feet since 1997 and the Commission has also failed to take the necessary action. That is inexcusable.
Allow me to conclude with a few words on consumer protection as a whole. I have been in the European Parliament for 10 years, during which most of my time has been taken up with environmental policy and consumer protection.
I do not always have the support of the Member States, despite hearing so much from them about consumer protection.
May I remind you of the legislation on product safety and product liability, where I tried to obtain legal security.
However, I was ignored by countries such as Germany, France and others when it came to protecting victims of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the longer-term.
I would have wished for more consumer protection and more support than I mustered.
Perhaps there is now a new trend in consumer protection.
I call on the Commission and on you, Mr Byrne, to pass your homework on to the Member States.
The Council is usually pretty dozy.
All the members of the Council are usually pretty dozy.
Make BSE testing compulsory and ensure that beef is labelled with its origin, that would be a major step forward.
Madam President, this is not only a crisis for British farmers, it is a crisis for French farmers as well.
But above all it is a crisis for the European Union.
France has to decide whether it is in the EU or not.
If it is in the EU it must play by the rules.
In the UK our support in the European elections was very shaky.
There was a very low turnout, as was the case in a lot of Member States.
I believe that if we had an election today that turnout would be even lower because of France's refusal to lift the ban and the fact that the European Union is brought into disrepute.
The results of the Scientific Steering Committee back on 1 August ruled that British beef was as safe as any other beef and that was led by a French chairman.
I happen to believe that it is safer than other beef because we have got some of the highest hygiene standards in the world now.
The Food Standards Agency in France did not come up with any new evidence at all.
I believe it was purely a political decision by France but we must now move forward.
I would like to see a fast-track legal procedure.
I would like to see, if possible, an injunction taken out against France before the legal process has run its course.
I would like to see interim compensation and I would like to see when a fine is imposed, that high compensation is given to British farmers.
British farmers are fed up.
The British public are fed up with France refusing to lift the ban and I am sure the Commission is fed up as well.
It is about time that France obeyed the rules.
Madam President, in refusing to lift the ban on British beef and veal, the French Government has decided to face a limited and short-lived crisis with its European partners rather than risk a scandal breaking in a few months or years linked to Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.
This decision is based on the scientific conclusions of the French Food Safety Agency which, while acknowledging that progress has been made, has identified continuing and serious potential risks, as demonstrated by the persistence of the disease.
Seattle has also affected this decision, with the growing importance of the precautionary principle and the pre-eminence of health over the market.
There is no point today in making things worse or in exacerbating Francophobe or Anglophobe feelings.
We are right to be careful.
It is the inadequacy of the guarantees on the definition and implementation of testing programmes and, in particular, the lack of European regulation on labelling and traceability, which has led France to this decision.
In addition to these elements, the efforts made in recent weeks, which no one disputes, must be clarified and supplemented in particular by the establishment of a compulsory labelling and traceability system from the producer to the consumer.
This would clearly allow the consumer to be reassured and would also combat the re-routing of products in the context of triangular trade.
Beyond this specific case, should we not be working to impose the pre-eminence of the precautionary principle over all other considerations in trade, both within the EU and with third countries? Are the Commission and Council not using a similar approach to that of the French Government in rightly opposing the lifting of the ban on hormone-treated meat originating from the United States of America, despite the WTO injunctions?
Madam President, my British colleagues must realise that this is a scientific, political, legal and moral problem.
On the scientific level, first of all this disease is due to an unknown agent.
It is not a bacteria and it is probably not a virus, even though the German Professor Diringer believes otherwise. It is due to a mysterious prion.
Secondly, there is no ante-mortem test.
Thirdly, the disease is not disappearing despite the ban on meal.
Fourthly, acarids full of prions are being found on fodder.
This shows that the disease can be transmitted through fodder or grass and might mean that your soil is blighted forever and should not be used for breeding cattle.
For the moment therefore, science cannot settle the matter.
You have played the ball into the political court and it is therefore a question of whether trade or health takes priority.
Is selling or living more important? The majority of the world' s countries, including your American and Canadian cousins and even your Australian and New Zealand friends in the Commonwealth, are saying that they want to live first and then sell.
Yet you are demanding sanctions and creating a legal problem.
Legally, there are two problems, the first of which is the priority among regulations.
Should we give priority to the principle of free movement or to the precautionary principle? On the issue of BST, which does not present any danger to human health, we gave priority to the precautionary principle which we pleaded in Seattle.
The second legal problem is one of legal responsibility.
You are the guilty party because you created this disease from start to finish.
In financial terms, we assumed the risk for two years but we cannot accept this risk in terms of health.
There is also a moral or theological problem, as previously identified by Saint Thomas Aquinas, Antigone and Creon. Should human law come before natural law?
It appears that, using human law, you have created an epizootic disease and a zoonosis.
I would remind you that the latest child to be dying from your disease is only 13 years old.
Well, we do not want to die. Finally, on the religious level, your Agriculture Minister told us two years ago in the Committee on Agriculture that this disease was due to God.
As Christmas approaches, you should pray to God and hope that Father Christmas brings us a diagnostic test. You should try to ask forgiveness from God.
Yet to do this, you need to repent your sins ...
(The President cut the speaker off)
Madam President, first of all, I would take exception to the previous speaker who wrongly quoted Thomas Aquinas, but this is just by the by.
We are now in the middle of a crisis which has been going on for eighteen weeks and a beef conflict between France and the United Kingdom which, as I have noticed, has taken on a suspect nationalist dimension.
It appears that we still to this day battle out national conflicts by means of soccer and beef.
Especially the latter aspect is very detrimental as this is on the back of farmers and consumers.
This is simply not acceptable.
The second point which becomes clear is that Member States appear to be unable to handle this sort of issue.
It is completely clear why this is the case because we have one internal market, we have an open market.
If we do not solve this type of conflict at Community level, then this sort of problem will emerge.
When Mr Prodi made his declaration here, he said that a food safety bureau should be set up at the earliest convenience.
I would like to find out from Commissioner Byrne when this will eventually happen so that we have a powerful and independent bureau in the European Union which can actually take action and which can adopt powers from national Member States.
The second point which has struck me in this whole political debate is that, first of all, a solution is being sought between two key Member States and that maybe after that, the Commission will be able to have some input.
I find this a dangerous tendency in EU politics.
It is not acceptable that key Member States are increasingly solving problems amongst themselves.
I also say this as a representative of a smaller Member State.
We have opted for a common market, for a common approach and there is no room for a culture in which major Member States thrash out issues amongst themselves.
In this respect, I am concerned about the Commission' s position and I would like to know where the European Commission stands and if it is actually able and prepared to take the lead in conflicts like this.
Once again, however, in Europe, we live in an era in which food in Europe has probably never been safer and the consumer' s confidence in food is actually diminishing by the day, not only in France and Germany but also in other countries, because this discussion is dragging on due to a lack of political decisiveness.
In this light, I would like to know exactly what the Commission is going to do about establishing a food safety bureau on a European scale which is independent and has far-reaching powers.
Madam President, I want to speak here today as a Member of the European Parliament, and not in terms of nationalist rhetoric.
I do not personally believe that British bluster is as exportable or as healthy as British beef.
I want to look today at the decisions which have been taken in the light of the Commissioner's earlier statement, to which very few have so far referred.
The facts on this matter are quite simple.
The decision to lift the ban followed the scrupulous adherence of the UK to the Florence Agreement.
When that ban was challenged by the French Food Safety Agency, as they had the right to do, I guess, in terms of their own remit, it was referred to the Scientific Committee, which unanimously endorsed the safety of British beef.
That was, as the Commissioner's statement says, "immensely heartening".
So what went wrong after that? With the Commissioner's help - and I pay tribute to him, and I can share his sense of exasperation - we went into a process of negotiation when many said we should not.
The result of that was the memorandum of 23 November, which we believe was the beginning of the end of this wretched dispute.
What happened as a result of that? We got the decision on 9 December by the French Government that it would continue with the ban; and that did come to most of us as a complete surprise.
I want to say a word to Mr Jospin, and I do so in no nationalist spirit.
I believe that his subsequent briefings on this matter have deepened this dispute in the most serious way.
Mr Jospin was a party to the memorandum of agreement, which accepted the date base scheme in its entirety.
Now he says he would take, or would have offered to take, some beef from some herds in some parts of the UK, irrespective of the date-based scheme.
That is a total misunderstanding of the position as he knows it to be.
He has also said that he would rather be crucified by British public opinion than by French public opinion.
That is a ludicrous thing for a statesman whom I have always respected to say.
The former Prime Minister of France, Mr Mendès-France said: "Gouverner, c'est choisir" - you have to make choices.
You cannot always drag behind public opinion.
Mr Blair took a risk, and I think sensibly so, in taking the route of negotiation when others argued for confrontation, crisis, boycotts and bans.
I think he was betrayed by what has happened in the wake of that, and I do not personally believe that is the way to proceed.
The alternative, if you are going to choose not what is right but what is popular, is to pursue a process of confrontation between two Member States which threatens this whole institution.
We have to be based on the rule of law, we have to be based on some form of arbitration, which allows us at the end to say: "There we are, that is the best opinion we can get. It is unanimously in one direction.
Let us endorse it".
If we do not do that we are going back to the kind of rhetoric that we have heard from one or two Members in this debate today.
Surely this Parliament and this continent have gone beyond the days of Henry V and Joan of Arc? What we need now is a sensible way out of this situation.
I would like to end with one question to Commissioner Byrne directly.
We do not want this dispute dragging on in the courts for years.
Nobody, I think, sensibly does.
Therefore, what interim measures can he propose which would make it possible for a temporary lifting of the ban, up to the point where this can be settled between the two governments in an amicable manner? His job is to be an honest broker.
I believe he is trying to do it.
I think this Parliament should support him in that effort and should talk down those who want to widen the division between our two countries.
I very much regret that France continues to maintain its ban on beef from the UK and, as I have made very clear in previous debates here, I expect the European Commission to urgently proceed with enforcement action.
However, I also believe that political representations should continue to be made, and for that reason my SNP colleague Neil MacCormick and I remained in this Chamber yesterday rather than sulking outside in the corridors.
We took the opportunity to personally draw President Chirac's attention to the quality of Scottish beef.
Since the start of the beef crisis, SNP members here have consistently advocated that the situation in Scotland should be assessed separately with a view to a phased re-introduction of export trading.
I am challenging the Scottish Minister for Agriculture to bypass London and support the SNP's request, which I delivered yesterday to the French Government, that the French authorities study in detail and with urgency the scientific evidence, the traceability and labelling situation in Scotland; and I call upon French colleagues in this House to advocate that line with their government.
I propose that we continue the debate. We will ask our colleagues to interrupt their confabulation which is, however, connected with the agenda problems which have arisen due to the adjournment of the current debate.
Madam President, do you want to wait until the meeting has finished here or not? Could I first of all address my comments to the Commissioner?
Commissioner, I have attacked you vociferously on three previous occasions for not taking a decision, because I thought you were weak. I would like now to first of all extend my thanks to you for the way in which you have at long last taken a decision and are going to take the position you are with the French.
We know that it is extremely difficult.
I actually believe that you have been - and I will use British words here, "stitched up"; and "stitched up" not only by the French.
I also think you were used by the British Government.
I look forward to seeing a quick response to your actions.
I might add to Mr Whitehead that I speak here now not just as a Member of this august Parliament but as a farmer.
It is particularly important that people understand that this crisis has affected every individual farmer, not just in France, but right across Europe.
I have with me today - and I risk being arrested, I brought them for you, Mr Byrne - two British prime steaks.
They are from a local butcher and farmer who lives next door to me, who will almost certainly not be in business by the end of the week.
I have to say, after hearing what Mr Martinez had to say, that I am deeply concerned that BSE may now be transmitted to human beings.
I would just like to add, since you are about to announce a White Paper on food safety, that, whatever people say, food right across Europe can never be 100% safe.
I would just like to suggest to Mr Martinez that last year over 20 people died from listeria in France - more people than caught BSE.
Therefore I do hope that you use objective scientific evidence when it comes to food safety, and not just a precautionary principle, which is understood under Article 30 (ex-Article 36).
I look forward to hearing your reply later on.
Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Monti has just told us that the criticisms made of those who sought dialogue were unfounded.
I fully share this point of view.
At this stage in the debate, I want to mention the three parties in this affair, with the first clearly being the British Government.
We should congratulate the efforts towards dialogue made on both sides of the English Channel.
The efforts made on the British side since the start of the BSE crisis to improve the situation and food safety should be welcomed.
Part of the task has been completed but only part.
I would cite as proof the rumour that parents are still being told that beef is not on the menu in British schools.
Confidence has clearly not yet been totally restored.
The action taken by France with others and against others must help to definitively resolve this crisis.
The second party in this affair is my own government.
What principle has France sought to promote? The answer is the much-vaunted and much-discussed precautionary principle which we are collectively seeking to define.
We are also trying to ensure essential food safety which cannot be sacrificed to the market logic.
You may imagine that it is easy to pander to public opinion.
I believe that the decision taken by my government was a decision to be made by politicians and this is how a government must act. I agree that governing means making choices, and so my government has made its choice.
What would all your governments have done if, following an expert opinion, your national agencies had indicated that there was still a risk?
The political authority must choose, so this is what my government has done. It has taken a political decision based on an assessment of the risk.
On the subject of agencies, I wish for one thing. We should have at our disposal the expertise of a proper European agency so that in the future the conditions for conducting this type of debate will be better.
I must inform the previous speaker that we do apply the precautionary principle in France.
Have you noticed that, following the opinion of the French Food Safety Agency, we have withdrawn some cheeses because of the cases of listeriosis? You will remember that we had five points in the negotiations.
We are now satisfied on three of these points but we still need guarantees on the other two.
Others before me in this debate, like Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and Mrs Roth­Behrendt, have said this.
Is there any sense in testing if we do not understand its effective implementation and the application of its results? This is what we demand of you, Commissioner.
I am aware that behind the fight being conducted by France there is also a fight going on in the interests of the British and the whole European Union.
Today in this debate, Commissioner, you are our partner in dialogue and we have four demands to make.
Firstly, you must face up to your responsibilities.
My country did not happily enter into its current position of being condemned and hauled up before the Court of Justice.
We understand.
However, your responsibility is also to effectively implement the testing and labelling without which, free movement is just an illusion.
You must also set up this food agency to which Mr Prodi is committed and which we will support in all the actions which it may take.
May I commence by extending my regret to all of you for not being here at the commencement of this debate.
I know how important it is and I had had every intention of being here.
I had booked a flight this morning, but due to the weather conditions in Brussels that flight was unfortunately cancelled and indeed the later flight I was on was also delayed.
Please accept my apologies for being late and having to have my statement on this issue read to you by my colleague, Mr Monti.
Let me now deal with the many important questions you have raised on this issue.
First of all Mr Stevenson and a number of others have raised the question about the delay in instituting the proceedings that were launched against France on 16 November.
That was the formal notice, the more factual part of the proceedings, and then yesterday the reasoned opinion was agreed by Parliament to be sent to France with a response time of five days.
Let me say this.
I am firmly convinced that the line I followed in attempting to resolve this in the manner in which I did was the correct way to proceed.
I do not have any doubts about that whatsoever.
There are many reasons for this that I have rehearsed here in the committees of Parliament before.
A negotiated settlement that is agreed between the parties is always a better settlement than the one that comes about as a result of court proceedings.
However, the charge has been made that by adopting that course of action a delay has occurred in the institution of proceedings and that by implication the court hearing will take place later than would otherwise have happened.
That is not correct.
The true position is that France's position on this situation was not made clear until 1 October.
At that time I was just short of two weeks in office.
That was the first opportunity the Commission, or rather I, had to give serious consideration to France's response to this issue.
I attempted to deal with this in the manner I believed appropriate.
For instance, having regard to the fact that I have responsibility for consumer protection, public health and food safety, my first reaction was to see if there was anything in this allegation.
Was any evidence available to the French authorities which should be examined at Commission level by the scientists in the Scientific Steering Committee? You will remember that I asked the French authorities if they would send that evidence to the Scientific Steering Committee for further evaluation and to see if there was anything new.
They did that and the Scientific Steering Committee also asked the UK authorities if they would forward such up-to-date information as they had.
They also complied with that request.
This gave the SSC an opportunity to fully review all the evidence in this unfortunate situation.
The result of that was they came up with the unanimous decision that we are all aware of.
With regard to my own responsibilities that I have just identified, I felt that this was an important first step for me to take in this issue.
The advice that I got, which I was happy to act upon, was that the beef exported from the UK under the DBES scheme was as safe as any other beef in the European Union.
Further discussions took place following that.
My belief is that the further discussions and the protocol of understanding that was reached between all parties and experts involved give further assurance to consumers in the European Union - and they are not just French - that the beef exported under the DBES scheme is as safe as any beef in the European Union.
That also was a valuable exercise.
To address the question of whether there was a delay or whether the proceedings will ultimately come to court later than they would otherwise have done in the formal notice proceeding, the first letter sent by the Commission normally requires a response within a period of two months.
In this instance that was shortened to two weeks, extended by a further week at the request of the French authorities.
The reasoned opinion, when that is sent out two months after the formal notice procedure, normally also gives a period of two months in which to reply.
These periods have been shortened by the procedure that has been adopted by the Commission. In many respects we have therefore caught up and are no later in the proceedings than we would have been in normal proceedings.
So not only do I believe that we adopted the right course of action with the good results that came from that, but I also firmly believe that we are not in any delay as a result of taking that particular course of action.
Mr Stevenson also raises the question of the position of Germany.
My understanding is that this will be discussed in the German Parliament on 17 December.
There is every expectation that the parliament will come to the conclusion that the embargo in Germany should also be lifted.
To come to some of the issues that were raised by Mrs Roth-Behrendt and Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, particularly with reference to the tests that are to be undertaken: you will remember that these were among the issues raised by the French authorities and addressed in the protocol of understanding.
I said in my hearing last September that it was my intention to establish a proper EU-wide testing system for BSE to determine the levels of infectivity in various Member States.
It is still my intention to do that.
Progress has been made.
A working party has been established in my directorate-general, working in association with Member States, to come up with the procedures necessary to put this provision into place.
It is my intention to proceed with that.
Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and others also mentioned the necessity of putting into place labelling systems and, in particular, mandatory labelling systems.
We are going to discuss this later in the evening.
Let me just say at this stage that labelling is an issue that is focused on consumer information and consumer choice.
It is not a public health issue.
We must focus on the public health aspect of this.
That is why, in my belief, the test aspect of it is important and must be distinguished from the need for labelling.
Others asked questions in relation to the actual procedures in the Court; how quickly they can begin and when we can expect to get a result.
Like all court procedures anywhere in the world they move at their own pace because it is absolutely essential that all parties put their arguments on paper.
In litigation before the European Court of Justice not only do the proceedings take place between the immediate parties - in this instance, the Commission and France - but also Member States are perfectly entitled to intervene in those proceedings: the UK or indeed any other Member State.
The consequence of that would be that further documents would have to be drafted whereby those Member States set out their position.
All of that has to be filed in the Court, it has to be translated.
All of this takes time.
The question has been raised whether there are any fast-track procedures that can be applied in this instance.
There is an interim measure procedure and the criteria that are laid down for the application of interim measures are quite strict and quite narrow.
I have asked the Legal Service in the Commission to advise me whether the circumstances of this particular case fall within those narrow criteria.
In my view this will be, to some extent, an uphill battle but nonetheless I intend to seek advice and if I am advised that it is an appropriate way forward it will be my intention to do that.
In the event that the embargo remains in place, and the proceedings are launched next week, it will, of course, require the launching of proceedings before we make any decision on interim measures.
Equally it will be necessary for me and for the Legal Service to determine the appropriate response, having regard to the response of the French authorities to the reasoned opinion that was agreed to be sent yesterday because that in essence is a legal document setting out the legal position and I expect that the response will be in similar terms.
No final decision can be made on the issue of whether interim measures can be sought until those papers have been filed.
There is one other, very rare procedure, which is the accelerated procedure.
I have made inquiries as to whether this procedure is available.
This is a procedure whereby the Commission could apply to the Court to have the case heard in an accelerated manner - or fast-track manner.
It requires once again certain criteria to be present.
It would also require the abandonment of the Commission's right for instance to file certain documents at certain crucial stages of the case.
I have to make a judgement on whether it is worthwhile seeking to fall within those criteria if we can and, if so, whether it is a good balance to seek an early oral proceeding or whether it is better to have all the arguments on paper before the Court.
That is a judgement call that I will make after I have read the reply to the reasoned opinion that has been sent to the French authorities.
However, I should say that if I feel it is the appropriate way forward, that is the course of action that I propose to adopt.
Let me just go back to the issue of compulsory labelling and traceability that was mentioned earlier by one of the Members.
The DBES scheme itself provides for traceability.
It provides by implication for labelling.
The scheme was not devoid of this requirement and therefore to approach this debate on the basis that the DBES did not require these issues to be put in place would be misleading, because it would be unfair both to the scientists who determined what was necessary to make sure that the exportation of UK beef was sound and safe and it would also be unfair to the Commission in the approach that has been adopted so far.
This scheme provides for traceability and consequently for a form of labelling.
I was also asked by a number of speakers about the progress of the Food Safety Agency and the White Paper on Food Safety.
A number of Members said, and I agree, that this appears to be the way forward in relation to these issues.
I think most of you will agree that to have a situation where scientists are disagreeing with one another on issues so important as food safety is a very unsatisfactory situation.
It is unsatisfactory from a public health point of view but it is also unsatisfactory from the point of view of consumer confidence.
This is an entirely undesirable situation.
From the beginning of this Commission you will remember that President Prodi made this an issue that he regarded as being of the foremost importance.
Before any of the rest of us were sworn in he made this a clear priority.
He asked me to deal with this.
We have been working on this in my DG since then.
The White Paper has been drafted, it has been in interdepartmental consultation in the Commission and it is now just about to be presented to my colleagues in the College of Commissioners.
I expect that to happen on 12 January.
That White Paper includes many of the issues that I have raised here and in the Environment Committee on a number of occasions but it also includes a chapter on the issue of a food safety authority.
I believe that in the establishment of a food safety authority it will be necessary to determine what competences it has.
It will obviously have a competence in the area of a risk assessment and in assessing that risk it will be necessary for the scientists employed in this agency not only to rely on their own opinions and advice, but also to liaise with the scientists in Member States, because an agency such as this - agency or authority or whatever - will have to be not only independent but will also have to liaise with scientists in Member States.
It cannot be established in such a way that its work is going to be in the form of a series of dictates issued from Brussels as to what the appropriate way forward is.
Such an agency will not have the confidence of Member States and consumers unless there is a broad degree of consultation between scientists in the European Union.
But once that consultation process has taken place and once the scientists in the Member States and in the agency have come to a conclusion on the appropriate way forward in any given situation, particularly with regard to a food scare, the opinion of the agency should stand, should be respected, should be followed and should not be challenged.
Once the consultation process has taken place there should be no need for such a challenge.
It is in those circumstances that the authority of such an agency will permeate throughout the European Union and will not only be a good authority in the area of safety and public health but will also provide a degree of consumer confidence that I believe is absolutely essential and will be a bedrock in the way forward.
I might refer just very briefly to the other issue that we have been talking about a moment ago - courts.
The hierarchical system that exists in the court procedures are such that you could not imagine for a moment a court of appeal in any one of the Member States seeking the opinion of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg under an Article 177 reference and then, having got the opinion, not liking it and saying "we will not apply it".
It is an unthinkable proposition.
Such a situation does not exist in the scientific world.
Here are in fact two areas of expertise.
One I accept is more static, or the analysis is of more static facts - that is the law, the legal process.
The other is an examination of a more evolving situation.
The analogy is not a very accurate one but nonetheless it is valuable in the sense that in circumstances where it is necessary to have the evaluation by experts, whether it is in the legal world or in the scientific world, we need finally to have an authoritative voice on the issue and that is where I expect we will get that - from the establishment of this food safety authority.
I have to say that I am heartened to hear so many of you express yourselves on this subject here this afternoon and say that it is also your belief that this is the appropriate way forward.
I have been asked about the structure of this agency on previous occasions.
I am not going to go into it in detail this afternoon other than to say to you that I am aware that concerns have been expressed by many of you on the issue of the relationship between the concept of independence, on the one hand and accountability, on the other.
Of course, such an authority has to be accountable in some way to the political process, to those of us who are engaged through codecision in making laws, because we after all are accountable to the people, the scientists are not.
Risk assessment has to be undertaken by those who are qualified and expert in that area - that is the scientists.
They have to be independent and be seen to be independent.
Once they have made their risk assessment they pass their judgement then to the Commission, when the law-making would be initiated by the Commission.
It would then be discussed in the codecision procedures with Parliament and with Council.
In that way it is our responsibility to initiate and pass laws that give effect to the concerns that are expressed by the scientists.
Let me just say finally that I believe it will be necessary to have an interaction and a relationship between the scientists and the law-makers and between the risk assessment and the risk management so as to make absolutely certain that those drafting the laws understand what the scientists are saying, and that the scientists are satisfied that the law-makers are drafting the laws in such a way as to deal with the concerns expressed by them in their opinion in the area of risk assessment.
I think that they are the issues that were raised and I hope I have dealt with all of the questions satisfactorily.
Commissioner, thank you for your statement.
The debate is closed.
Question Time (Council)
The next item is Question Time (B5-0036/1999).
We shall examine the questions to the Council.
Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has the floor for a procedural motion.
Mr President, we have adjourned the debate on beef labelling until late this evening.
I should like an assurance from Mr Byrne that he will be present at it.
We are going to ask the Commissioner whether he can be present at tonight' s debate.
(The Commissioner replied in the affirmative) Mrs Jackson has the floor for a procedural motion.
Mr President, this is a point of order.
It follows from what Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has said.
We notice that the Council is in its place in order to take part in Council questions.
Could we have an assurance that the Council will remain in its place at 9 p.m. in order to take part in the debate on the Papayannakis report? We appreciate very much the huge efforts the Finnish presidency has made to work very closely with Parliament.
We would therefore appreciate the Presidency being present at 9 p.m. in order to explain to us what happened at the Agriculture Council last night on the issue on which Mr Papayannakis' report is based.
Could we please have that undertaking from the Council now, in the interests of the transparency which Finland no doubt wants to be the hallmark of its presidency?
Mr MacCormick has the floor for another procedural motion, which I hope will be the last one.
Mr President, I was interested in what Mrs Jackson said.
I had heard a report that the debate on second reading on the late payments directive would also happen at 9 p.m.
The timetable has clearly become extremely disrupted.
Many of us have other engagements to try to fit in this evening.
Can the President give an authoritative ruling on the timing of events later today, please?
Mrs Siimes has listened to you attentively and to your desire for the Council to be present.
Mr MacCormick, can you repeat your procedural motion in more detail?
Am I to understand that you either will not, or are unable to, tell us what the timetable is for later this evening?
As you know, Questions to the Council will take place next, as it is the next item on the agenda, and the sitting will resume at 9.00 p.m. when there will be an announcement on the issues which you are asking about.
If you come at 9.00 p.m., you will have the opportunity to participate in that part of the agenda.
Mrs Jackson has the floor.
Mr President, on a point of order, we would very much appreciate it if you could ask the Finnish Presidency - which is sitting over there - whether it can be present at 9 o'clock this evening in order to help us with our debate on the Papayannakis report.
The Council, and only the Council, can give us the background to what happened last night in the Agriculture Council.
Could you please, so as to preserve the interests of the Members of this Parliament, put that question to the Council for an answer?
Mr President, I should also like to make a point of order and move that the Bureau consider calling the important debate on the four related reports on competition policy - which was originally scheduled for Wednesday morning, was then postponed to the afternoon and is now to be postponed to late evening - for the Tuesday of the January session if need be.
I would ask the Bureau to examine this motion so that we can duly complete the other items by midnight.
This is a motion which the President can examine.
Mr Langen, the agenda has been set. At 9.00 p.m. we shall resume the sitting, which will begin with a joint debate.
I will now ask the question to Mrs Siimes which was put by some Members: whether she can attend at 9.00 p.m. to inform this Parliament and to guarantee it the greatest possible transparency.
If you wish to speak and reply to these Members, Mrs Siimes, you have the floor.
Mr President, as the Council did not receive a request for this in time, the relevant Minister will not be here, and I myself am prevented from being here at 9.00 p.m..
You have listened, as have I, to the Council' s options.
In any event, at 9 o' clock at night, which is a tranquil hour, and also in a Christmas spirit, surely you can hold this debate without Mrs Siimes.
If you will be so kind as to allow me, we shall begin Questions to the Council, since Mrs Siimes is currently here with her great capacity for replying to our questions.
Question No 1 by (H-0668/99):
Subject: Economic refugees in the EU In recent years the Member States have taken in thousands of economic refugees from central and eastern Europe in addition to the thousands from Turkey and other countries in the Middle East and Asia who have found sanctuary in the EU over the years.
This development is having severe effects on unemployment within the Member States and is a further burden on their already stretched social security systems, particularly in Member States (such as Greece) sharing borders with countries which have recently opted for a free market economy and which are now facing crisis on several fronts with huge numbers of unemployed.
Will the Council say whether it has raised this issue during the EU=s contacts with those countries which have expressed a desire to join the Union and what measures does it propose to implement to stem the uncontrolled flow of economic refugees into the EU, which has pronounced economic and social repercussions (e.g. an increase in crime) in its Member States?
I should like to thank the Council representative for her reply to my question; however, I fear that my approach to this issue has not been understood.
I do not think, at least from the discussions held so far - I am a new MEP - that the economic and social repercussions of illegal immigration or the de facto immigration of the present influx of illegal immigrants and the imminent influx from countries which will join the Community when the European Union enlarges are fully appreciated or taken into serious account, even in a legal procedure.
Allow me to quote an example from my own country: Greece, with a population of 10 million, already has one and a half million immigrants, economic refugees or other types of immigrant, meaning that the working population of the country has increased by 20%.
This is causing huge economic and social problems and crime problems. Think what will happen when Turkey joins the European Union and at least another 20 million unemployed enter Europe.
This is why I wanted to know if there are any Council or Commission studies on the matter.
Mr President, the Council is obviously aware that we have to strive to both improve and guarantee employment in the Member States in Europe, to preserve Europe' s social security systems.
One important issue here is that we should prevent employment in the black economy, which thwarts or weakens efforts to improve the employment situation.
Furthermore, I would remind everyone that at present the rules that apply to immigration on the part of nationals of applicant countries or third countries in the Member States of the European Union clearly fall within the competence of the officials appointed for this purpose at national level.
In addition, border controls and the border police in those Member States having common borders with third countries come exclusively under the authority of the Member States themselves.
I wonder if the Council would agree that the best way to stem the flow of economic migrants is by improving economic conditions in the host country? In other words, if enlargement works, if the Agenda 2000 programme is successful in improving the economic situation in Central and Eastern European countries, this will of itself reduce the flow of economic migrants from those countries to existing Member States of the European Union.
Mr President, this is precisely what the Council thinks.
An important part of EU enlargement is the various current programmes of cooperation with those countries seeking membership of the European Union, and the basic principle is the improvement of the state of the economy in those very countries, leading to the creation of employment opportunities there, so that people would not need to move for economic reasons.
Are you sure, Mrs Siimes? In addition to the arguments raised by Mr Martin, I would say that banning migration adds to the flow and traffic in labour which almost inevitably leads to crime.
Mr President, there are two kinds of immigration: that which takes place legally in accordance with the rules of each country, and illegal immigration. In no way do we regard legal immigration in the territory of the European Union unfavourably.
The problem is precisely the fact that illegal immigration from third countries is taking place and people are even being smuggled in from them, and we have to address these problems.
But there has been no attempt whatsoever to impede legal immigration.
Question No 2 by (H-0671/99):
Subject: Compliance with Community policies and access to information held by the European Investment Bank (EIB) In March 1998 the European Investment Bank granted a loan of about ITL 60 billion to Gardaland S.p.A., for the purpose of enlarging the leisure park of the same name.
The author of this question harbours doubts about the advisability of granting the loan to a company which has substantial assets and is located in a region which is flourishing economically and which is particularly valuable and very important in ecological terms.
When it was asked about the nature of the investment planned by Gardaland, the Bank argued that it was unable to forward the relevant documents on the grounds of the confidential nature of relations between the Bank and its customers.
In view of the links between the ECOFIN Council and the EIB Board of Governors, could the Council state whether it intends to take measures to make information relating to decisions by the EIB more transparent and accessible, particularly where such decisions have major repercussions on a region's development? Does it not also consider that the effectiveness of the EIB's activities needs to be improved by introducing financial accounting and management procedures which will take environmental costs fully into account?
Mr President, the Gardaland project, approved by the Board of Governors of the European Investment Bank in December 1997, is a subject that has already been raised in Parliament in the Commission' s Oral Question Time.
The justification for the project, and its benefits, were gone over in detail then.
It evidently has to be stated again that one important precondition for the approval of project funding is that environmental considerations are taken into account in all projects assessed and formulated by the European Investment Bank. This was the case with the Gardaland project as well.
Again, with regard to the question of transparency in the Gardaland project, as with other project documents within the territory of the Community, it is most essential to bear in mind that the EIB is actually a bank.
Its documents are therefore not public in the same way as, for example, the documents of the bodies in the Council that draft legislation.
To preserve confidentiality on all sides, the EIB cannot make public documents and information it holds on borrowers or other agencies that are involved in the formulation and implementation of those projects sponsored by the Bank without their express consent.
We must also remember that, although the ministers appointed to the Board of Governors of the EIB are normally the same as those who attend the Ecofin Council sitting, the Ecofin Council has no authority in itself to lay down rules for the EIB with regard to its lending policy or information on it.
The EIB Council adopted rules on public access to documents on 26 March 1997, which were published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 243 on August 1995 on page 13.
The European Investment Bank therefore publicly releases documentation and information within the framework of these rules, although the aim must in general be to maximise exchange of information and the principle of transparency as far as is possible without jeopardising business secrecy.
Again, if the Community grants the EIB a security against certain loans out of the Community budget, for example, to grant loans for projects in third countries, the Council has stipulated that the EIB must, in these cases, produce an annual report to both the European Parliament and the Council on the action achieved with the help of the secured loans in question.
Madam President, if what you say is true, we have been particularly unfortunate because, although we requested these environmental assessments, we have not received a reply insofar as we have only been told that this is confidential information.
It is therefore clear that there is something that does not add up in what you are telling us.
We did not ask for information on the reasons why the EIB granted the funding. We simply asked what the general criteria which justified it were and which assessments were used when considering and granting the funds for the project - which, moreover, affects one of the richest areas in Italy, and which has a delicate environmental balance.
According to what you are saying, these assessments should be public but, according to the EIB, this is not the case.
Therefore, there is a slight discrepancy between your assertions and reality.
Mr President, as the Council stated in its reply, the European Investment Bank is a bank, and it therefore cannot function in accordance with the same rules on public access as the European Union institutions that enact legislation.
There is a lot of business secrecy involved in making decisions on loans and, as I said in my reply, it can be divulged to outsiders only with the express consent of the opposite party.
As regards decisions on loans made by the EIB, the Gardaland project affair has already been dealt with in the Commission' s Oral Question Time in Parliament and it was at that time, according to the Council' s information, that the justification for the project and its benefits were explained in great detail, and I shall therefore not return to the matter.
Question No 3 by (H-0673/99):
Subject: Opening up the Council of Ministers to transparency What is the latest situation with the case taken by Swedish journalists to the European Court of Justice regarding the conflict between the undemocratic secrecy of documents of the Council of Ministers and the open transparency of all documents as required by the excellent two-hundred-year-old Freedom-of-Information law in Sweden?
Mr President, on 17 June 1998, the Court of First Instance abrogated Council Decision 174/95 of 6 July 1995, according to which the plaintiff is not entitled to access certain documents associated with Europol concerning the public' s right to access Council documents, by virtue of Council Decision 93/731/EC.
The Council re-examined its own decision on the basis of this judgement and stated in a new decision made known to the plaintiff on 30 July 1998 that it could release the documents in question with the exception of one.
No legal action was taken as a result of this new decision, and the matter can now therefore be considered resolved.
Under Article 255 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Council must establish in a codecision procedure with the European Parliament general principles and limitations regarding access to documents to take account of the public or private interest within two years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
According to information available, the Commission is to deliver its proposal to the Council in January 2000, in compliance with the provision in the Treaty.
I am sure that the President-in-Office has noticed that five of the first 16 questions on the order paper, the previous question from Mrs Frassoni, and so on, are all about transparency.
Since we represent the public - the people of Europe - I hope that the Council notes that there is a wish for transparency in the Council.
My question is this: is it correct that the decision within the Council on which documents are to be released to the public and which are kept secret is made by a committee of the 15 press officers from the national representation offices by a majority vote? I was told this by one of the 15 press officers.
They sit there, completely unelected, and decide what is going to be published and what is not.
Is that really true because it is very hard to believe?
Mr President, I will state here just very briefly that the Council Working Group represents the Council.
It is a legal body and makes its own decisions.
The legal case which is being referred to here, the so-called Journalists' Case, is of great significance as an issue of principle.
One of the key points in the case is that of whether a Member State, in this case Sweden, has the right to abide by its own constitution and publish EU documents.
I would point out that, in its address, the Council of Ministers disputed that right.
Now, the proposal for a set of regulations in accordance with Article 255 is on the way.
I have a draft from the Commission which is very worrying.
This says that the Commission wants to use Article 255 to limit the right of national authorities to publish EU documents which have not otherwise been made public.
My question to the Council is this: does the Council intend that, with Article 255 as a basis, it should be possible to limit the Member States' right to publish documents in accordance with their own national legislation?
Mr President, as I stated in my original reply, the Commission is actually to deliver its own proposal on this matter to the Council in January 2000, and after the proposal has come from the Commission, the Council will debate it and determine its own position on the matter.
As there is no proposal yet, there is no fixed Council position either.
Mr President, I am interested first and foremost in how relations with Parliament actually stand?
Do you envisage the possibility of allowing Parliament to inspect all Coreper and Council documents on the Intranet?
Mr President, during the Finnish Presidency the decision was taken that the agendas for the Coreper meetings would be made available, and this is a step in the direction that the honourable Member would like to see.
Question No 4 by (H-0674/99):
Subject: Air traffic control in Europe What action is the Commission planning to take in order to put right the chaotic state of affairs prevailing within Europe=s air traffic control systems?
Could the Commission propose that a single body be set up to control airspace throughout Europe?
Mr President, the Council is aware of the increasing delays in Europe' s air traffic.
This subject was discussed in the Council on 19 July 1999, and it was decided to adopt a resolution.
The Council expressed its concern over the problems being caused by delayed flights, which are becoming more serious, and considered that action needed to be taken to find a solution to these problems and in this way respond to the demands by the citizens of Europe for a better service.
The Council urged the Commission in particular to produce a report on recent and current measures in place to try to reduce air traffic delays and congestion in Europe.
The problem was further discussed in the Council sitting of 6 October 1999, and it was decided that a thorough debate should be held on the issue in the next sitting of the Council in December, on the basis of a report currently being drafted in the Commission.
The Council asked the Member States to do their very best before then to reach a positive decision in their current talks on the question of the Community joining Eurocontrol, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation.
Eurocontrol is a key coordinator in Europe' s air traffic control system.
In its sitting of 9 and 10 December 1999, the Council held a large-scale debate on the Commission' s new report on air traffic control, which was delivered to the Council and the European Parliament on the Single European Airspace.
That report analyses the situation with regard to delayed flights and proposes some short-term measures to address the problem and puts forward some ideas about how the problem should be tackled in the longer term.
The Council noted with satisfaction the Commission' s proposals for short-term action to try to ease the situation that resulted from delayed flights in Europe.
The matter will be addressed by Eurocontrol and the Ministers responsible for civil aviation in their meeting to be held on 28 January.
In addition, the Council noted the Commission' s approach to the structural reform of air traffic, which was broader in scope and which set out to create a single European airspace. At the same time, it noted with satisfaction the Commission' s intention to set up a high level Working Group to look into the matter and report back to the Council next June on the issues involved.
The Council also urged the Permanent Representatives Committee to examine the Commission' s report and agreed to return to the issue at the next meeting.
Thank you very much, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, for the reply you have given me.
It is clear that the Council is currently considering this issue, which is of concern to all European citizens.
In this case, as an MEP, I have asked you a question which corresponds to the worries of my electors.
I come from a country, Spain, which depends very much on air transport and, in recent years, in Spanish airports, particularly Barajas and Barcelona, delays have been extreme.
Is there any possibility of some kind of accelerated aid from the Council to the current Spanish government and the airport authorities to eliminate this horrendous inconvenience to our citizens resulting from the poor functioning of the Spanish air traffic control service?
Mr President, as I have already said, the Council has looked into this problem of flight delays and called on the Commission to act accordingly and, as I said in my reply, we have also already made headway this autumn in this matter.
The fact that congestion and delays are more common in some parts of Europe than others is obviously very unfortunate, and perhaps the quickest way to deal with the problem is for the national authorities to find out what can be done to improve the situation in the individual Member States.
I hope that the national authorities of our shared country of origin, that of Mr Medina and myself, take good note of this advice from the Council.
Mr President, on mainland Europe delays of several hours are quite common, but in the outermost regions such as the autonomous region of the Azores, delays can last days or sometimes even weeks.
This is because there is an obvious shortfall in resources for air traffic control and for aid for airports and aerodromes in the outermost regions such as the Azores.
I would like to ask if the Council, which is quite rightly concerned about the situation in mainland Europe, also retains some concern for the situation of regions such as the Autonomous Region of the Azores, which is currently experiencing major problems, particularly following last weekend' s air disaster.
Mr President, it is certainly true that problems such as these are critical in smaller, outlying areas.
If I can now add something to my previous replies, I might say that one reason for delayed flights is obviously that, with the present system, an aircraft is cleared for take-off only after making sure it can land at the destination airport.
This is obviously annoying for the passengers sitting on board the aircraft or waiting at the airport for the aircraft to be cleared for take-off but, on the other hand, this procedure is more environment-friendly than having the planes take off on time and not being able to land when they get to their destination.
Mr President, may I ask the President-in-Office a question of a different sort on air traffic control.
I appreciate she may not have been briefed on this, so if she does not know the answer perhaps she would be kind enough to write to me in such a way that we can publish it for our colleagues.
It concerns the issue of the regulation which is shortly to come in which will enable airline pilots between the ages of 60 and 65 to fly freight traffic throughout Europe, with one exception.
The one exception is France.
That means, because of the extent of French airspace, pilots over 60 will effectively be out of a job.
Will she take that back to the Council of Ministers, raise it with her French colleagues in particular, and answer me, perhaps in writing later, unless she is able to do so today, about what can be done to ensure that these older pilots' jobs are made safe.
We are not sure, Mr Bowis, that this is a supplementary question.
You have suggested it already.
And there is always the epistolary relationship, which is so interesting, between the Council and the Members, but the President-in-Office of the Council has the floor.
Mr President, it would be wiser to answer this question in writing.
Question No 5 by (H-0678/99):
Subject: Referendum on self­determination in Western Sahara On 3 November 1999 the Moroccan Minister for Internal Affairs, Driss Basri, said in El Aaiún that the referendum on self-determination in Western Sahara, which is due to be held on 31 July 2000, >will be postponed for two or three years= on account of the 71 420 appeals which have been lodged against the provisional list of voters which is being drawn up by the UN mission responsible for the referendum in Western Sahara.
The UN has not recognised the authors of those appeals as being entitled to vote in the referendum.
What view does the Council take of the statement by the Moroccan Minister for Internal Affairs, to the effect that the referendum is to be postponed?
Is the Council planning to make representation to the Moroccan authorities in order to persuade them to stop holding up the referendum?
What attitude and what political initiatives is the Council planning to adopt in order to help ensure that the referendum does indeed go ahead on the date set by the UN, i.e. 31 July 2000?
Mr President, the Council cannot comment on the statement by the Moroccan Minister for Internal Affairs.
However, with regard to the referendum, the Council has noted the report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which refers to the careful consideration given to all the consequences of the affair, including those relating to the timetable for the referendum.
The Secretary-General of the UN also stated that he would make a realistic assessment of future action when he delivers his next report to the UN Security Council in December.
The Secretary-General has given his special envoy instructions to continue talks with the parties involved.
With regard to the enforced hearing of the 79 000 appeals, the UN Secretary-General cannot give precise details of the timetable or the additional staff needed to bring the hearing to a close.
This will not affect the commitment on all sides to comply with the UN peace plan for the Western Sahara.
The Council has offered its support to Mr Igleton, who is the UN Secretary-General' s special envoy in the Western Sahara, and the Council is prepared to push for a peaceful solution, based on the thorough assessment contained in the UN' s next report.
All sides should work together in an atmosphere of cooperation built on trust and refrain from any action that could jeopardise finding a solution to the Western Sahara problem that is based on a respect for human rights and democracy.
Madam representative of the Council, we have listened to Kofi Annan' s report on the most recent information regarding the referendum and we attended the 25th Conference on the support by European NGOs of the Saharaoui people a few weeks ago in the Canary Islands.
The main complaint raised there was that Europe is not sufficiently involved in this issue.
It is true that it supports the peace plan, it is true that it sends letters and other things, but Europe has a specific responsibility because my country, Spain, and other countries have a close connection with the current situation in the Sahara.
We have listened to Abdelaziz who has described again the unsustainable situation of the Saharaoui people in the Tinduf camps.
It is a situation in which they are making an enormous effort to maintain the education of their children and to feed their population, but which has already lasted more than 20 years.
The referendum should have been held in 1992.
It is not acceptable that now, as a result of 79 000 appeals by Morocco, it might be delayed by two more years.
We cannot judge the parties equally.
The Saharaouis are not hindering the referendum.
It is Morocco that is making things difficult.
We ask Europe to become more involved.
Mr President, the EU has not been particularly involved in the hearing of the case, but it is considering ways of constructively influencing the progress of the peace process in the Western Sahara.
In addition, the Finnish Presidency has been in contact with Mr Igleton to discuss EU participation in the preparations for, and organisation of, the referendum.
Mr Igleton has himself requested such participation, and he has also appealed to the governments of the EU Member States to send representatives to the region.
In a meeting with the Finnish Presidency held on 14 September, Mr Igleton urged the EU to convey a message to Morocco and Algeria that the international community is aiming for a sense of equilibrium in the Maghreb, and to make it clear that it will be difficult to provide financial aid for the reconstruction of the region without this sort of stability.
Furthermore, the Finnish Presidency adopted a resolution on 21 June 1999, in which the EU' s promise of support for the UN peace plan and related action was reiterated.
Thank you very much, Mrs Siimes.
Question No 6 by (H-0679/99):
Subject: Implementation of ECHR judgement against Turkey Last month the Council of Europe's Committee of Permanent Representatives condemned Turkey for failing to comply with a judgement handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mrs Titina Loizidou, thereby breaching its fundamental contractual obligation under Article 46 of the European Convention of Human Rights which specifically enjoins the implementation of judgments by the Court.
The ultimate sanction for a state which is a signatory to the Convention but which refuses to comply with Court judgments is expulsion or the suspension of its participation in the bodies of the Council of Europe.
Top Turkish officials have specifically declared that they will not implement the judgement by the Court of Human Rights.
Thus, on the one hand, we have a scenario in which the EU Member States may expel Turkey from the Council of Europe while, on the other, its candidature for EU membership is being discussed in Helsinki.
Is the Council aware of this? Before any further proposal is made to accept Turkey's candidature, will it call on Turkey to provide a specific commitment to implement the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the Loizidou case?
Mr President, the Council naturally follows the human rights situation in Turkey closely.
Although the Council is not inclined to interfere in the work of another international organisation, it keeps a close eye on whether Turkey is complying with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Council is aware that, in the case of Titina Loizidou, the European Court of Human Rights considered that Turkey was in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights when that country was found guilty of depriving a person of the rights to property in Northern Cyprus.
Turkey was ordered to pay compensation. The Council is furthermore aware that the deadline for Turkey to implement that judgement ended in October 1998 and that Turkey has still not paid the compensation specified.
The Council wishes to point out that all EU Member States voted in favour of a provisional resolution on the issue, which the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe adopted on 6 October 1999, and which stated that the terms of payment proposed by the Turkish government could not be considered to be in compliance with the obligations in respect of the court decision taken, and forcefully urged Turkey to re-examine her position.
However, nothing in this provisional document alludes to the far-reaching effects that the honourable Member mentions in the second part of his question.
Madam President, thank you for your reply.
The problem is precisely this: nothing has been said as to what will happen if Turkey does not comply with its obligation to compensate Mrs Loizidou.
However, the question which was put to you - to you in the Council - is this: what political response do you, as the Council, intend to make to this conduct since Turkey has stated on numerous occasions that it does not intend to comply?
As we are now entering into new relations with Turkey, perhaps the question of respect for the decisions of the Court could be raised - and I think that it should be raised - within the framework of these relations?
Mr President, as I said, the Council does not wish to interfere directly in the work of other international organisations but, naturally, it will be following the development of this case as it proceeds, and it will then contemplate the possible outcome.
I have already described the current state of affairs in my reply.
Question No 7 by (H-0685/99):
Subject: Humanitarian aid for Serbia With the onset of winter, will the Council take action to ensure that humanitarian aid is sent to the Serbian people, following the reservations expressed by the Stability Pact coordinator himself, Mr Bodo Hombach, concerning the continued embargo, which is causing greater hardship to the Serbian people than to the Milosevic regime?
Mr President, for the sake of clarity I would like to mention firstly that humanitarian aid is sent to the Serbian people via the European Commission' s ECHO programme.
EUR 62 million was set aside for humanitarian aid projects for Serbia in 1999 alone.
In addition, ECHO is at present considering granting EUR 20 million in aid, inter alia, for heating in special institutions such as children' s homes and homes for the elderly.
Furthermore, the Council has made a decision to send heating oil for the winter under the Energy for Democracy programme.
The cities of Nis and Pirot in Serbia are involved in trial projects, and they were the first to take delivery of the consignments of oil.
The Council has also reconfirmed its readiness to consider including other cities in the initiative.
Madam President-in-Office of the Council, forgive me.
I ask you about humanitarian aid and you respond by talking about plans of a mainly political nature, such as the famous programme - the last one which you referred to - in certain towns which is, permit me to say, a quasi-political programme.
I am not well versed in religious matters, but I think that humanitarian programmes are directed not at friends but at those who have a problem of a humanitarian nature, be they friends or enemies.
Politically, I have no particular sympathies with the regime of Mr Milosevic - on the contrary - but I cannot understand what the position is regarding humanitarian aid to the Serbian people, the final consequence of which would, of course, be the lifting of the embargo.
You did not reply to that, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, and I would like a clearer response.
Mr President, this year the European Union has given or will have given Serbia a total of EUR 62 million for different humanitarian aid projects.
This is an example of aid reaching its destination.
In addition, it is planned that EUR 20 million in aid could be granted under the ECHO programme to special institutions, that is to say for heating for all those who are worst off, such as those in children' s homes and homes for the elderly.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, all of us here must have realised that we are witnessing an unprecedented act of blackmail against the Yugoslavian people, especially the Serbian people.
To be specific, these people suffered merciless bombing by NATO for 78 days, with the active participation of the European Union; today they are subject to inhumane blackmail on the pretext of the democratisation of the Federal Democracy of Yugoslavia, in other words, they must overthrow their legitimate government in order for the fuel embargo to be lifted and they are to be given the funds to reconstruct what was flattened by NATO and European Union bombs.
As far as we are concerned, this is a policy of de facto genocide.
The issue therefore is not whether a few tonnes of oil will be given to orphanages and old peoples' homes, but whether the necessary funds will be given to Yugoslavia, to its legally elected government - let us once and for all respect international law fully, and not selectively - so that we can restore the damage and stop the political genocide of the Serbian people.
Thank you very much, Mr Korakas.
I do not know if you have asked a specific question.
Mr President, I am asking if the funds needed to reconstruct everything that was flattened will be released and if the embargo will be lifted and the money will be given to the Yugoslavian Government, the legally elected Yugoslavian Government, with the involvement of foreign observers, etc.
Your question is now clearer: whether the money is arriving and whether the embargo can be lifted.
The President-in-Office of the Council has the floor.
Mr President, I have already said that money is being used for humanitarian aid.
That is a different matter from reconstruction aid proper.
In addition, the Council supports democratic forces everywhere, and would point out that the current government in the region has not been democratically elected.
It is still too early to examine the trade embargo; we do not yet know what should be done about it in the future.
Question No 8 by (H-0694/99):
Subject: Overlapping of European Parliament part­sessions and meetings of the Council of Ministers Of the 41 meetings of the Council of Ministers scheduled between September and December 1999, 18 took place or will take place when Parliament is holding plenary sessions in Strasbourg or Brussels.
Important Councils such as the Internal Market, Ecofin, General Affairs and JHA Councils fairly often meet during part-session weeks.
Does the Council not agree that this overlapping is undesirable, given that the Commission has to attend meetings of both the Council and Parliament?
Is the Council aware that press coverage of Parliament=s part-sessions suffers as a result, in that journalists cannot be in two places at once and usually give priority to Council meetings in Brussels?
Dos the Council not share the view that public opinion on Europe in general and the European Parliament in particular would benefit if the institutions took account of each other=s calendar of meetings?
Does the Council intend to take greater account in future of Parliament=s presence in Strasbourg each month, particularly since it is the Council that has obliged Parliament to meet there?
Mr President, according to Article 1(2) of the Council' s Rules of Procedure it falls to the competence of the Presidency of the Council to announce the dates of Council sittings planned to be held during its term of office seven months before that term of office commences.
The problem that arises from the situation raised by the honourable Member could be brought to the attention of the Member States, which succeed each other as countries holding the Presidency of the Council.
However, I shall be more specific and say that the country holding the Presidency generally has little leeway when you consider that 15 ministers convene in the Council, all of whom have very pressing schedules.
Furthermore, the Council' s working efficiency could suffer significantly if it neglected to have sittings each month lasting a week and they were, as a result, squeezed inevitably more tightly into the weeks left over.
Mr President, I have to say that this reply is entirely unsatisfactory because I am not bothered about addressing the Presidency.
I do want to address the Council.
At the end of the day, the current Presidency embodies the Council.
It is also a question addressed to the Council and the issue is that very often meetings take place these days when we are in Strasbourg and that the press cannot come to Strasbourg.
I do believe that the Council will have to realise that the extent of support for the European Union amongst its citizens is of key importance.
Finland too, as one of the 15 Member States, is affected by this.
So as far as I am concerned, this does not answer my question and I hope that this will be discussed in a broader context within the Council at some stage.
Mr President, this bears out once again that it is crazy that we are banished to Strasbourg time and again by the same Council.
Indeed, if this was not the case, this problem would not arise.
I would like to ask the Finnish President to check with her colleagues in the Council and with all 15 Member States whether this could be taken on board in future?
Mr President, it is obviously true that the Presidency represents the Council and that the organisation of Council meetings is the specific task of the Council.
In practice, however, matters proceed in such a way that each successive Presidency makes its own schedule for its forthcoming term.
I understand very well that Parliament' s work here in Strasbourg is very important, and it is indeed to be hoped that the overlapping of meetings can be avoided.
As there are a lot of Councils, and they are made up of 15 members, who should all be present, and as there are many issues to discuss, it is virtually impossible to imagine that some weeks might be left entirely free, as the Councils are quite busy enough as they are.
It is clear, however, that the organisation of Council meeting timetables has to be looked at seriously.
Finland, as the country that will soon be handing over the Presidency, will carry on with the message that we should always try to avoid overlapping, if circumstances allow.
Unfortunately, however, it is not always possible.
Thank you very much, Mrs Siimes.
Question No 9 by (H-0697/99):
Subject: Fiftieth anniversary of the Geneva Conventions In the light of the fiftieth anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, and in view of the armed conflicts that have taken place in the world over the past few years, particularly in continental Europe, what opinion does the Council hold on the level of compliance with the International Humanitarian Law laid down by these Conventions?
Mr President, when the fiftieth anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions was celebrated in August 1999, it was an opportune time for the EU to strengthen its commitment to promoting International Humanitarian Law in all armed conflicts.
In this connection the Finnish Presidency reaffirmed that the European Union considers compliance with the four Geneva Conventions and the two protocols to be important, as they are the general agreements relating to International Humanitarian Law.
The European Union has urged countries, which have not yet done so, to be a party to the Geneva agreements and other agreements relating to humanitarian issues.
The EU, where necessary, has also stated to countries involved in conflicts that the provisions of the Conventions must be fully taken into consideration.
At the twenty-seventh international conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent held between 30 October and 16 November, the EU for the first time adopted a resolution which stressed that recent and current conflicts have shown that war is ever more making victims of civilians, especially women and children, or that they have been used as pawns in war situations.
The European Union said it was concerned about how serious the situation had become, and regretted the fact that International Humanitarian Law continued to be violated.
In relation to this, the EU took a positive view of the UN Secretary-General' s recent report on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts.
Many of the major recommendations of the Secretary-General should be looked into right away, as they offer a good basis for active commitment on the part of the Security Council in this matter.
To make the implementation of International Humanitarian Law more effective, the EU gave a general assurance on handheld weapons, light weapons and anti-personnel land mines.
In addition, the Council expressed its grave concern, at a recent meeting on 11 November 1999, over continued military action in the northern Caucasus.
In this connection, the European Union condemned all the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in Chechnya, which has caused severe suffering to the civil population.
The Council also reminded everyone that all sides in a conflict have to comply with International Humanitarian Law.
Furthermore, the Council urged the Russian Government in particular to avoid civil casualties and ensure that international humanitarian aid gets to its destinations unhindered, including the growing numbers forced to abandon their homes and cross the border into Ingushetia.
The Geneva Conventions have an in-built preventative effect, and any who may be in violation of humanitarian legislation are more aware than ever that it can no longer be taken for granted that transgressors will go unpunished.
The EU has said on many occasions said that the practice of impunity is not acceptable.
If national systems are not effective enough, the international community ultimately has the responsibility to see that the law is enforced.
Trials involving violations of International Humanitarian Law are thus an important means of encouraging compliance with the Conventions.
International courts hearing cases from the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have emphasised the importance of the Geneva Conventions by increasing credibility in the notions of responsibility for war crimes and personal responsibility.
In this connection the European Union has taken a positive view of the adoption of the statute for a permanent International Criminal Court.
That will go further to promote the commitment to a speedy entry into force of the Rome Statute and the effective and credible establishment of an International Criminal Court.
The EU wants the international community to aim in the future, above all, at closing the widening gap between the existing international standards and compliance with them.
The European Union is determined to include this special angle on humanitarian matters on the agenda at international forums.
The Finnish Presidency, at the fifty-fourth sitting of the UN General Assembly, called on the international community to find the right solutions and answers to the new and unforeseeable challenges of humanitarian law.
Mr President, last Monday the Socialist Group tried to include a motion for a resolution in the agenda of this plenary sitting which would have highlighted the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, demonstrated the commitment of the European Parliament to the principles of international humanitarian law and expressed our support for the International Committee of the Red Cross.
As a result of a mix-up amongst the Groups in this Parliament, and we think that this was more a matter of procedure than a disagreement over the content of the motion, it was not included in this debate.
In later sittings, however, we will insist on attention being given to the importance of this issue, which has been well highlighted in the reply of the representative of the Council.
In fact, the basic principles of international humanitarian law, which are contained in the Geneva Conventions, are values which must be maintained as a basis for European construction and promoted through institutional activities.
In any event, the European Union must be an agent for peace and international humanitarian law and it must assist the ICRC in its task of guaranteeing that this law is upheld.
Furthermore, the European Union must provide as much aid as possible to relieve the suffering of victims and we must, at last, contribute to the education of our citizens in terms of respect for peace.
For all these reasons, on the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, at a time when we must all commit ourselves - Parliament, Commission and Council - to promoting awareness of international humanitarian law and supporting the organisations responsible for its protection, does the Council propose any specific initiative to promote the knowledge of international humanitarian law amongst the citizens of the Union?
Thank you very much, Mr Martínez.
I hope that there are no more procedural motions, because in the end you have asked a question after a statement of principles.
However, if Mr Dupuis wants to table a procedural motion, he has the right to do so.
Mr President, I wanted to know if this was a real question or a spoof question.
No, in the end, surprisingly, there has been a question, although I did not know initially whether it was a question or not.
In fact, it was a question.
What has happened is that firstly there was an explanation of the question in the form of a declaration.
There has been a question, to which the President of the Council may reply.
Perhaps, the President has heard more of a declaration.
I would ask you to repeat the question since it has been so brief that we hardly noticed it.
I do not know if Mr Dupuis is a parliamentarian or a false parliamentarian, but I would like to say that I ended with a very clear question, which asked whether the Council proposed any specific initiative for promoting awareness of international humanitarian law.
That was my question and I have justified it with arguments which you have all heard.
I repeat that I do not know whether others are parliamentarians or false parliamentarians, but my question was not a false question.
We are all real parliamentarians, Mr Martínez, Mr Dupuis, but this type of parliamentary manoeuvring happens and it is quite normal.
Madam President-in-Office of the Council, there is a specific and clear question and you may reply.
Mr President, the EU thinks that this gap between the standards that exist and compliance with them must be closed in future.
One concrete move in this direction was made when the Finnish Presidency at the fifty-fourth sitting of the UN General Assembly called on the international community to make a real effort to find the right solutions and responses to the new and unforeseeable challenges of humanitarian law, and it is the EU' s intention to raise this issue in different international contexts.
Question No 10 by (H-0699/99):
Subject: Transport of live animals Does the Council support a limit to the transport of live animals of a total journey of not more than eight hours?
Mr President, the Council would remind the honourable Member that it issued Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transportation, and its amended version, 95/29/EC, which established rules for the transportation of animals within the territory of the EU, including maximum time limits for the transport of different types of animal.
Furthermore, the Member States are urging the Commission to introduce a proposal for a directive to limit the overall time for the transport of animals to a maximum of eight hours.
Mr President, the Minister has given the right answer.
The problem is that the second part of the answer should be to say what she is going to do to make sure that it is implemented.
Would she agree that a sign of a civilised society is humane treatment of its animals? In Europe today we still see animals suffering agonies and animals dying in transit as a result of the inhumanity of transport conditions.
Too many animals are transported in cramped conditions, without adequate food and water, without opportunities to turn round, to get out, to exercise on their journeys.
Eight hours, as she has rightly said, should be the legal limit throughout the European Union for live animal transport.
It should be the limit, under the directives; it is not in practice.
I ask the President-in-Office of the Council to talk to the Council, talk to the Commission, and say why this is not yet being enforced.
Animals are suffering and therefore Europe is not yet a civilised society in this regard.
Mr President, the reference to the Commission in this question is very much in order since, by virtue of the acts based on the Treaty and its provisions, it is specifically the task of the Commission to see that Community legislation is being properly applied.
In this capacity, the Commission must also make proposals it sees as fit to correct possible distortions.
The Council for its part is prepared to give special attention to any proposals made to it by the Commission that concern the area the honourable Member refers to.
If the honourable Member would like to know more about the actual conditions relating to the transport of animals or bring the matter to the attention of the Commission it would perhaps be better if he put his questions directly to the Commission, as the express job of the Commission is both to monitor compliance with the provisions of directives in force and act if compliance is not taking place.
Question No 11 by (H-0703/99):
Subject: Action by the EU against illegal trafficking in nuclear, biological and chemical materials Despite serious evidence of illegal trafficking in nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons-grade materials, no serious steps are being taken to combat the problem. At the same time, multilateral deliberations on this matter and agreements on the monitoring of NBC materials are proving inadequate.
According to many rumours and reports, these networks are situated mainly in the Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Russia and the illegal trading activities are centred mainly in Constantinople and Budapest, while much of the trafficking is carried out through channels in the Balkans, many of which go through Kosovo. What view does the Council take of this major problem and what is its attitude towards those countries within whose territory this dangerous and illegal trafficking is taking place, particularly where there is evidence of a cover-up and especially in view of the fact that some of the countries involved are seeking EU membership or association?
Mr President, the prevention and control of the illegal trade in substances that can be used in the manufacture of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons is the aim behind customs, legal and police cooperation in the Union in matters of crime, an aim that we are attempting to fulfil both directly and via Europol.
As the problem mentioned is an international one, crossing the borders of the Union, international regulations have also been established regarding this issue.
In 1996 the Council adopted a decision on the participation by the Member States of the EU in strategic action planned by the World Customs Organisation for the Balkan channels to speed up the process of international cooperation and develop the control of illegal commerce, particularly in the Balkans.
The joint operation, called "Roadrunner" , was set up in 1998, and the same sort of operation has also been planned for the Balkan channels in 2000.
In addition, the EU' s customs administration each year sets up joint operations to stop illegal commerce.
Third countries, especially the Central and Eastern European countries, are invited, as required, to take part in these operations.
Furthermore, the Council has agreed on certain joint police operations aimed at the prevention of international crime, which will make it easier to control the routes used by criminals more comprehensively.
One of these operations is a route control project, to prevent the illegal trade in weapons.
To bring control into more precise focus, the Member States of the European Union are working to improve the efficiency of risk assessment methods and the exchange of information process that makes prevention possible.
We are convinced that the more efficient use of computer systems to circulate information will make it easier to identify consignments that constitute a risk, the dealers and the countries of origin and the destinations.
The Member States of the EU are committed to an effective block on weapons policy and participation in operations relating to the control of exports, i.e. action by the nuclear exporters' group, the Zanger Committee, the Australia Group and the Wassenaar arrangements.
Thank you for your reply.
I asked you and the Commission this question purely and simply so that we would all sit up and take note of an issue which has always been dealt with in the past either as a question of crime or as a question of international terrorism.
I want to use this point of view to draw your attention to the fact that, when the political decision to enlarge the European Union was taken in Helsinki a few days ago, the political criteria of the Europe of the 15 were included, the Copenhagen criteria, were included, and rightly so; however, you should take account of the fact that there are problems in the new applicant countries which did not apply in the past to the fifteen.
In this context, when the question includes the matter of what the European Union is doing in relation to applicant countries where these materials are transported through their territory or these situations are covered up, what it means is what policy will it follow or what political commitments will it impose on these countries so that progress can be made with accession procedures.
This is the political issue, over and above any others in relation, for example, to the manpower which has know-how on these issues and which has remained unemployed, in relation to the laboratories of the Soviet Union and certain other matters.
My question referred to this political issue and that is why I asked it.
Mr President, firstly, the problem mentioned in the final part of the honourable Member' s question was that there are many former military personnel who are unemployed, both in the applicant countries and the other third countries close to the EU.
The EU has tried in part to address this problem through its programmes to specifically support alternative models of employment for these people.
With regard to smuggling and the applicant countries, what I said in my reply is clearly the case, that the EU' s customs administration now establishes joint operations, on an annual basis, to stop illegal commerce, and, if necessary, third countries are also invited to take part in these operations.
Through these operations and during the general process leading up to membership, we clearly have to tighten up cooperation and our common ability to also function in those areas that fall within the jurisdiction of the EU.
Question No 12 by (H-0706/99):
Subject: Practice of the European Court of Justice with regard to openness Recent events in the European Union have shown that EU decision making must be public.
The EU institutions have made considerable efforts to create a climate of openness with regard to decision making.
However, unlike the courts in many Member States, the European Court of Justice has a policy of only limited openness.
No statistics are kept of the outcome of votes in connection with its decisions and judges do not express views at variance with Court judgments.
Does the Council intend to take steps to ensure that after a reform of its activities the European Court of Justice complies with this principle of openness by introducing more transparent decision making? Does the Council intend to urge that the outcome of votes in connection with decisions should be published and that judges should be allowed to express views at variance with a given judgement?
Mr President, pursuant to Article 321 of the basic instrument of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Article 33 of the basic instrument of Euratom, and Article 29 of the basic instrument of the ECSC, deliberations in the European Court of Justice are secret, and remain so.
In its current practice, the Court of Justice is simply applying those provisions.
Pursuant to Article 245 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities, Article 45 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and Article 160 of the Euratom Treaty, the Council can amend the rules on secrecy only at the request of the European Court of Justice.
The idea expressed by the honourable Member is naturally one of those approaches that may be adopted when considering theoretically how to solve the problem of openness regarding the deliberations of a body exercising judicial power.
However, as the honourable Member quite rightly points out, this is not a question of a practice that might even be adopted in the internal systems of all the Member States.
The approach suggested by the honourable Member has both its advantages and drawbacks, as does that adhered to in compliance with the legislation in force that applies to the European Court of Justice.
We might, however, imagine that the delicate balance that is being aspired to in this area will duly take account of the different principles to be acknowledged in this case.
Mr President, I might say in response to Mr Bowis' question that not only animals but MEPs also suffer in this Chamber, when timetables change and it is sometimes quite boring to have to wait.
However, my thanks go to the representative of the Council for still having answered my question.
The European Court of Justice exercises power in a remarkable way.
For the public to really be able to see that the Court' s application of the law meets all the criteria of independence and objectivity traditionally associated with a court of law, the application of law must be undertaken openly.
I would like to thank the Presidency of the Council for being of the same opinion as I am on this but how significant would you say the justifications for decisions are, and the fact that the individual opinions of the judges and the bases of interpretation, especially regarding the sorts of cases that have given rise to debate, will remain forever in the dark? Should we not include the future status of the European Court of Justice on the IGC agenda, so that these clauses in the Treaty can be amended insofar as this matter is concerned?
Mr President, I will start with the final part of the supplementary question.
With regard to the IGC agenda, this is something that is still alive and well, and it is obviously possible to return to the question raised by the honourable Member on that agenda.
This secrecy regarding deliberations which exists in the current versions of the Treaties is, in any case, justified to the extent that it is an effective means of preserving the independence of the judges, the adoption of decisions and, furthermore, the consistent interpretation of Community law.
If the varying opinions of the judges were to be made public, that would, at least for the present, be at odds with the structure of the Community' s legal system.
This practice, which exists in some Member States, is accounted for by those countries' legal histories and is the result of the distinctive features of their judicial systems.
The practice, which exists in one or more Member States, would, however, be quite difficult to transfer to a Community court, without making agreement on decisions harder as a result of the change.
Earlier this evening we discussed a concrete case before the European Court of Justice under question 3, the so-called Journalists' Case.
What amazed me, in following the discussion, was the fact that the address by the Council of Ministers too - it was of course the Council of Ministers which stood accused in this case - was classified as secret.
I really do think it is unreasonable for a particular institution' s opinion on a political issue to be classified as secret if there are no very special reasons indeed for this.
I wonder if the Council of Ministers considers that the increased openness which is now hopefully to come within the EU ought also to embrace the Council of Ministers' addresses to the European Court of Justice.
Finally, I want to say that it is especially pleasing to have a minister from the Left Alliance here too.
Mr Sjöstedt, I realise that I have infringed the Rules of Procedure because you had already asked one supplementary question and on Council days you can only ask one.
This mea culpa shows that errors are committed in relation to the Rules of Procedure, but it was a pertinent question and so the Council may reply.
Mrs Siimes has the floor.
Mr President, I believe the Council has already answered the question about the case of the journalist, and I would like to point out that the Council altered its own position in this case regarding public access to documents so that in the end there was just one document, information on which was not to be given out.
In that sense, obviously, the Council itself - how can I say this? - corrected its procedures to make for greater transparency, which has been spoken of here.
Regarding the original question, I would say that the decisions of the Court and the documents associated with them are obviously rather a different matter from that of decisions of a body drafting legal provisions.
In this sense also, the criteria for openness regarding whose varying opinions should be made known and whose should not - as those of the judges are not - are obviously different matters for consideration.
Thank you very much, for your willingness to answer our questions.
Since the time allotted to Questions to the Council has elapsed, questions 13 to 32 will be replied to in writing.
That concludes Questions to the Council.
Mrs Kauppi has the floor for a procedural motion.
Mr President, I am completely satisfied with the Council' s reply but, before this part of this sitting ends, I would like to ask the Bureau when it intends to decide on the issue, as we are having a debate on Mr von Wogau' s report on the important issue of competition policy and state aid policy, which was meant in fact for this morning, but which today was put back by several hours.
Now it has been said that it might even be moved to January.
I would like to know at what time it might be safe to leave if I want to give my opinion in the debate?
Well, I thought I would have to call on the Holy Spirit to guide me, but luckily the officials tell me that the debate will take place tonight.
I did not know, but with full confidence in the team of officials, I can tell you that tonight, in all probability, you will be able to stay because we will be able to discuss it.
(The sitting was suspended at 7.10 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)
State aid and competition policy
The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:
A5-0069/1999 by Mr von Wogau, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission White Paper on modernisation of the Rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty [COM(1999) 101 - C5­0105/1999 - 1999/2108(COS)];
A5­0078/1999 by Mr Rapkay, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the XXVIIIth Report by the Commission on Competition Policy (1998) [SEC(1999)0743 - C5­0121/1999 - 1999/2124(COS)];
A5-0087/1999 by Mr Jonckheer, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Seventh Survey on state aid in the European Union in manufacturing and certain other sectors [COM(1999) 148 - C5­0107/1999 - 1999/2110(COS)];
A5-0073/1999 by Mr Langen, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission report on the implementation in 1998 of Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC, of 18 December 1996, establishing Community rules for state aid to the steel industry (Steel Aid Code) [COM(1999) 094 - C5­0104/1999 - 1999/2107(COS)].
In accordance with Rule 146(1), I have received a request from the PPE-DE Group to postpone this debate.
Mr Karas has the floor to explain the reasons for the request.
Thank you very much, Mr Karas.
We shall now proceed to the vote on the request of the PPE-DE Group.
(Parliament approved the request)
Late payment in commercial transactions
The next item is the debate on the recommendation for second reading (A5-0099/1999) on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive combating late payment in commercial transactions [8790/1999 - C5-0125/1999 - 1998/0099(COD)] (rapporteur: Mr Murphy)
I would like to commend this second reading to the House.
It is very much about prosperity, and about creating jobs in the European Union, particularly for our small and medium-sized enterprises, by creating a better business climate for those businesses.
Paradoxically, I do not want this report to be used.
In fact I would like to see it go out of fashion very quickly indeed.
This sort of Directive should be changing the climate of our business economy, away from late payment to prompt payment.
We actually want a culture in this European Union, in our single market, of prompt payment, not late payment.
I would like to place on record a number of thanks before I address the substance of our second reading: thanks to Parliament's services for working so quickly on this report; to the Commission for all its support; and to the Finnish Presidency for the courteous and careful advice it has given through this process.
Thanks also to colleagues on the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy with whom I have worked very closely, several of whom I see here in this Chamber this evening.
In particular, thanks to UEAPME who are very much the voice of small businesses in the European Union and who have given wholehearted support to this proposal.
One further vote of thanks is also due, and that is actually to a ghost of this Chamber: that is, to my former colleague and good friend Lyndon Harrison, who was rapporteur at first reading, now Lord Harrison of Chester.
It was Lyndon Harrison who, as rapporteur on 16 September 1998, said to this House: "It is time to outlaw cheating practices and give small and medium-sized enterprises the confidence to go boldly into the single European market knowing that they will be paid on time and in full." I could not agree more.
I have to say, from our position as a Parliament, that the Council's common position was a disappointment - especially when you consider that we share the same aim.
Yet because we share the same aim, and because there is goodwill on both sides, I am confident that we will have an effective and efficient directive that will eventually be adopted.
However, it is important to point out that there are large areas of difference between us.
These include the rate of statutory interest to be charged when a late payment occurs; the length of the trigger period for interest if no contract has actually stipulated a payment period; retention of title in the course of late payment; the role of the public sector and the treatment of public procurement; and compensation claims arising from late payment.
All these areas are very difficult and could cause problems between Parliament and Council.
Nevertheless, it is my belief that they are integral to our aim and are broadly safe and sound, and will help create a better business climate for small and medium-sized enterprises as they develop to realise their full potential within the single market.
Shortly after I was elected to this House, Mr President, one of my first pleasurable duties was to bring to the Parliament representatives from Dudley Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which was then in my constituency.
They came to a hearing on late payments that was being organised in the Parliament and gave some very good expert advice, recognising that we had problems with late payment in the single market.
Those problems have actually got worse, which is why we currently have a directive and a proposal before us this evening.
The importance of this directive is that it will help us address that business climate, to have a cultural change so that we move away from late payment to prompt payment as the norm within the European single market and not, as it currently is, the other way around.
The small and medium-sized enterprises of the European Union are watching very closely to see how we react to this particular proposal and the common position.
They will expect from this House tomorrow a strong vote backing the vote that was carried in the Industry Committee unanimously on Monday of this week.
With those opening remarks, Mr President, I would commend our position to you.
Mr President, at this moment in time millions of small and medium-sized enterprises are watching us and the eyes of even more millions of workers in the European Union are turned anxiously towards us.
We are being called upon to deal with a most serious matter.
I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Murphy, for the excellent spirit of cooperation which we had and to congratulate the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy for its full and unanimous support for our joint effort.
We must all, Parliament, Commission and Council, reflect on the responsibilities which face us.
We must bear in mind that one in four SMEs which goes bankrupt does so because of late payments.
We must be aware of the fact that 450 000 workers have lost their jobs at a time when the main problem facing the European Union is how to combat unemployment.
We must bear in mind that every citizen in the European Union owes 65 euros due to late payments.
We must bear in mind that we owe it to this society and to the entrepreneurial spirit of the European Union to give them the chance to develop on a sound basis.
We must also understand that we cannot permit the unfair practice whereby companies or even the public sector, which is the worst payer there is in the European Union, are financed free of charge, thereby condemning thousands of enterprises to death, stagnation or entrepreneurial castration.
What we are now being called upon to do is to restore conditions of healthy competition.
We do not intend to protect anyone.
However, we do intend to set up a framework of fair practices, to try and lay down rules of healthy competition so that we can all use our abilities and skills to face the future with better prospects.
I want us all to understand that several more thousand jobs are at stake if we back-pedal on this report which we are being called to vote upon.
I received a call today from an organisation representing thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises to say that they wished to congratulate the European Parliament on behalf of European business people.
That is precisely what we are waiting for here.
That is precisely what we are attempting to do and I call on the European Parliament, where we have the honour of sitting, to vote by a large majority in favour of the text tomorrow, I call on the Commission to do justice to the text which we give it during its evaluation and, above all, I call on the Council to understand that we cannot proclaim left, right and centre that we are above the law, that we cannot proclaim left, right and centre that we are sensitive to the issue of job creation, that we cannot proclaim left, right and centre that small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the economy and, at the same time, refuse to vote in favour of and adopt the positions of this European Parliament.
Mr President, the globalisation of our economy that is underway, and of which completion of the single market is a part, is made up of regional districts and energy centres which, by managing to form a network, become international.
In order to achieve completion, globalisation needs clear, simple and effective rules which, until now, our businesses and our craft industries have not been able to take advantage of in an area as important as commercial transactions.
The Council' s position, which was presented at second reading, is still weak on this point and, in particular, it does not shield small and medium-sized businesses and craft industries from the inefficiency of public machinery and from the excessive power of big businesses.
The amendments that Parliament has tabled are intended to fill this serious gap and have an ambitious objective: the creation of a legislative structure which, while careful not to create pointless bureaucratic complications, will allow the sizeable productive forces of the Union to flourish in the internal market, thereby facilitating their activities on the global market too.
The most significant innovations we wish to introduce are the following: careful consideration of the consequences of late payment for perishable foods; recognition of the right to demand compensation for costs incurred from debt collection too; retention of title clauses by the vendor; to ensure that an enforceable title can be obtained normally within 60 days of the lodging of the creditor' s action; and finally, greater transparency in the relationship between the contracting authority and the contractor, and also in a subcontractual relationship.
This group of amendments may mark the beginning of a real cultural change in the current relationship between debtor and creditor.
My final observation is of a purely political nature.
In the last few days there has been a lot of talk about the role and future of the Community institutions, but I would like to remind you that the credibility of a structure such as Parliament or the Council is closely linked to its ability to resolve the problems that trouble citizens in their everyday life, or to take positive action on these matters.
I would like to compliment and congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Murphy, and the committee, on the work they have done on this.
Although we are a small House tonight this is a terribly important subject.
It cannot be said too often that small businesses do not have deep pockets and so have greater difficulty riding out cash-flow crises than bigger ones.
They often have to wait for money to come in before paying their own suppliers.
If payments are delayed it has a knock-on effect.
Sometimes they are dependent on one large customer.
If this client delays or defaults on payments, that can mean the equivalent of a whole month's work lost, with potentially catastrophic effects.
Worse still there is often no real redress.
Though there is a statutory right, for example in the United Kingdom, to impose interest on late payments, there is practically no way to enforce this and court action is impractical to recover small debts.
We need to have some form of enforcement machinery.
There is also the difficulty of different payment terms across the European Union - 30 days in some places, 90 in others.
The compromise of 60 days seems to me a sensible arrangement.
It is grand that the Commission has put its shoulder behind the wheel of speeding up commercial payments but it is far from the case that the Commission is beyond reproach itself.
The Ombudsman' s report highlighted many instances of late payments to suppliers by the Commission.
This point was addressed in the communication from Commissioner Liikanen and another concerning time limits.
I am glad that the Commission is seeking to improve its own procedures to reduce late payments as I would like to see it put its house in order.
I had a letter from a distinguished academic the other day pointing out that persons coming to give reports are often kept waiting for their expenses money for several months.
This is unacceptable.
We must make sure that the Commission does as well as it expects others to do.
Mr President, when the common position arrived here, as the former shadow rapporteur of my group, I felt slightly abandoned by the rapporteur of first reading who had left this House.
When it also transpired that the file of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs had been passed on to the Industry Committee, then I felt completely orphaned, but the coordinator and the new EPP shadow rapporteur have adopted me in the Industry Committee for a short while, which made up for a lot of things and for which I would like to express my thanks to both.
I would also like to say a word of thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Murphy, who has done a sterling job.
Mr President, the common position is better than the original proposal.
The Industry Committee, however, has incorporated a few more amendments and I hope that they can be conciliated swiftly because the SMEs are desperate for the entry into effect of this directive, but quality should come before speed.
The report meets with my full approval.
I still have questions but only with regard to the bill of exchange, Amendment No 18.
I am aware that the bill of exchange is used in one of our Member States as a means to counter excessive payments.
However, I do think that the bill of exchange is too strict an instrument.
It is an unconditional order to pay a certain sum on a certain day and even if there are serious reasons for challenging the claim, one cannot refer to them as the debtor.
If the bill also needs to be guaranteed and accepted by a bank, then this becomes an expensive business.
Personally, I hold the opinion that we should confine ourselves to judicial review on account of unreasonable terms.
I would like to know the Commissioner' s opinion regarding this Amendment No 18.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 10.00 a.m.
Bovine animals and beef: identification, registration and labelling
The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0101/1999) by Mr Papayannakis, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products [COM(1999) 487 - C5-0241/1999 - 1999/0205(COD)].
Mr Goodwill has the floor for a procedural motion.
Mr President, on a point of order, although we are not joined by the Council representative tonight, could I ask whether the Commission or a representative of Parliament's secretariat are aware of press agency reports I have seen which state that the decision to extend the voluntary scheme for 12 months was actually made in the Council yesterday, circumventing the codecision procedure and making this debate and the vote tomorrow irrelevant?
Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has the floor for a procedural motion.
Mr President. I wish to speak on the same point.
I do not take the view that the debate here and hence the vote tomorrow are irrelevant. Quite the contrary.
What I would like clarified for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and because the Council is not here I would be happy to hear it from Commissioner Byrne before the debate, is this: how are we to interpret these announcements and the Council conclusions before us.
Obviously the Council has decided that, if we react to the regulation presented by the Commission with proposed amendments, it may not agree to the simplified procedure, i.e. to accept this postponement under the codecision procedure.
It would then approve another proposal from the Commission, drafted in accordance with the old Regulation 820, article 19 of which establishes implementing provisions which allow a postponement of one year.
The Council has apparently decided, should the Commission make this formal proposal, to agree to it.
So, obviously what we have here is a twin-track approach by the Commission and we are naturally curious to know, Commissioner Byrne, now that we are in the middle of a codecision procedure, if the Commission is using a twin-track approach to circumvent this codecision by announcing a different approach to the Council.
I would be most obliged if you could tell me if you condone this approach by the Council, whereby a simplified codecision procedure can only be approved if Parliament does not exercise its right to amend the text presented by the Commission to the Council, in which case we must conclude that, if we exercise that right we are, to all intents and purposes, out of the codecision procedure!
We would like this point cleared up by the Commissioner before the debate.
I am sorry, Commissioner, but I must put this question to you; the Council is not here and we would like this cleared up before the debate and before tomorrow' s vote.
I repeat that I consider that this debate and tomorrow' s vote, i.e. the postponement, are urgently needed.
I disagree in this respect with the previous speaker, but I share his view that this needs to be clarified.
Mr President, I am not quite sure what I am being asked to do at this stage.
If it is agreeable to you and Members of Parliament I could address you on the issues I have come to address you on or alternatively answer the question that has been asked, in so far as I can, by the two previous speakers in relation to the issues raised in the Council yesterday.
As Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf very rightly points out, I am not here to answer on behalf of the Council, but in so far as I can assist Parliament I would be very happy to do so.
I have with me a copy of the conclusions which were suggested by the Presidency yesterday.
Before I read that document I should point out that what I am about to read amounts to a political orientation taken by the Council yesterday.
The Council recognised that this issue was being discussed today in Parliament.
Therefore, they deferred any decision on this issue until after Parliament had discussed the issue.
The matter will then go back to the one of the Councils before the end of the year, taking into account the decision of Parliament today.
However, if it is of assistance to Parliament I would be very happy to read this document which amounts to a political orientation rather than a conclusion or a decision of the Council yesterday.
The Council, after having examined the Commission proposal aiming at postponing for one year (from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000) the introduction of a compulsory beef labelling system and maintaining during this period the voluntary labelling scheme provided for in Regulation (EC) No 820/97, has adopted the following conclusions:
(1) The Council agrees on the following common orientation: the Commission proposal is acceptable without any other amendment than the addition of Article 37 to Article 152, paragraph 4(b) as a legal basis;
(2) Should the opinion which will be delivered by the European Parliament within the first reading of the codecision procedure correspond to the above common orientation, the Council shall accept this outcome and therefore adopt the proposed act thus amended;
(3) If this were not the case, the legislative act could not be adopted before 31 December 1999;
(4) The Council notes that in this hypothesis the Commission intends to submit a proposal having the same objective, but based on Article 19, paragraph 1 of Regulation (EC) No 820/97;
(5) The Council has considered a working document prepared by the Commission services in this perspective - 14015/99 - and noted a large majority in favour of the substance of the text;
(6) Should the Commission submit a formal proposal for a Council regulation corresponding to the text of the working document which received the support of the Council, the Council shall adopt such proposed regulation before 31 December 1999;
(7) The Council will do its utmost in order to have a decision on a labelling provision as soon as possible in consultation with the European Parliament.
That is the orientation of the Agriculture Council yesterday.
They have refrained from making a decision in deference to Parliament's discussions here today and the decision is open to Parliament to take tomorrow.
Mr President, having heard the text read by Mr Byrne, of which I have a copy here before me, there is indeed little point in this debate.
Mr Byrne, it is not true that the Council has not taken any decisions.
The Council has decided on a year' s postponement.
It says so.
The Council has decided that it knows that the Commission - in other words you - will present another solution which we know nothing about.
You know what it is, they know that you will present it to them, that it will be a good solution, that it will approve it by 31 December and that it will approve it without codecision.
That too is a Council decision.
Consequently, you are trying to fool us here.
Despite all this, I still have to present my report to you.
We approved Regulation No 820 in 1997.
It makes provision for the identification and registration of bovine animals - this was during the "mad cow" crisis - and it was decided on and entered into force on 1 July 1997.
It makes provision for labelling of beef and beef products: voluntary labelling until 31 December 1999 and compulsory labelling as of 1 January 2000.
I should point out, just so that we are clear on this, that the voluntary scheme in each country or in certain countries will obviously not become the compulsory system throughout the Union.
The transition from the voluntary to the compulsory scheme is effected by approving implementary regulations which should have been drafted by the Commission and which should be approved by 1 January 2000.
As yet, nothing has been approved.
Consequently, as of 1 January 2000 we must expect to have a sort of legal vacuum and chaos and confusion on the market. Why?
Because the Member States have been late sending in the reports which they were required to send to the Commission and the Commission has failed to do its work.
Then the Commission comes along on 15 November and tells us, "We are unable to complete, please can we postpone for a year" , adding that this will be on a new legal basis, Article 152 of the Treaty, which is quite right following the Amsterdam Treaty.
This development puts Parliament in a very difficult position, Mr President.
Either we accept exactly what the Commission tells us, i.e. we postpone for a year and then codecide on the implementary regulations, or we make amendments, in which case, the Council tells us, these amendments cannot be accepted.
It has already told us.
If they cannot be accepted, then again we have a problem.
What did we do in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy? We of course voiced the right criticism which, I believe, should be particularly forceful of the Commission and the Council.
We do not accept a year' s postponement.
We say it should be reduced to no more than eight months and, of course, with the amendments which the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has approved, we have, Mr President, to all intents and purposes, agreed with the proposals to sideline codecision, in order to save time and ensure that a compulsory agreement is reached quickly.
We have seen what the Council has decided, it has discounted all of this as impossible.
It has already said that it is going to postpone for a year and that it is waiting for the famous proposals which the Commission is hiding up its sleeve and which will solve the problem of implementation.
I think, Mr President, that things have come to a pretty pass.
I do not think that any of the procedures being proposed guarantee that we will proceed more quickly towards compulsory labelling.
I imagine that the Council will soon meet in extraordinary session, probably before Christmas, and will do something to ensure that there is no vacuum, chaos and confusion.
However, codecision has been sidelined and perhaps we are partly to blame.
I think, Mr President, that it is only logical after all this to envisage the possibility of going to Court, because these are clear infringements of the legislation.
I personally think that there is no guarantee that we will proceed more quickly.
However, I recommend the solution proposed by the Committee on Environment and I hope that we will proceed more quickly, albeit using dubious methods, towards compulsory labelling.
We have seen today how important it is in resolving differences between Member States and, above all, and much more importantly, and this is what interests us, how important it is to consumer protection.
If we see that even with this dubious method there is no progress towards an urgent solution, I think it is unavoidable that we shall end up taking recourse to Court, if, of course, there is a majority in the House which has the political courage and resolution to do so.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we discussed the question of beef labelling here in plenary as early as February 1997.
At the time we, as the European Parliament, voted in favour of the immediate introduction of the compulsory labelling system.
However, the Council decided on an initially optional labelling system and postponed the compulsory system until January 2000.
We are now being asked to agree to a further postponement of one year, as there has been a delay in the implementation of the applicable regulation 820/97.
The Member States and the Commission alone are to blame for these delays.
The Commission justifies the delay by saying that the progress reports from the Member States, which form the basis for the general rules governing a compulsory system, were received too late.
In our opinion, the Commission and the Member States did not make a conscientious effort to ensure that the compulsory beef labelling system would enter into force as planned.
The Commission must therefore be prepared to answer the question of why it did not take the Member States to task earlier.
After all, the Member States were obliged to ensure that the conditions needed for complete proof of origin for cattle were in place and that their electronic data bases were up and running by 31 December this year.
The Commission' s contention, that the presentation of its proposal was delayed because the outcome of the case pending against the Council before the European Court of Justice on the legal basis for Regulation 820/97 has not yet been decided, is also unacceptable.
Even if the judgement had been made, it would still have been extremely difficult to complete a codecision procedure on this matter.
We cannot sanction a further postponement of one year without reservation; otherwise we may well be forced again this time next year to agree to a further postponement because some Member States have again failed to do their homework.
We will give the Member States a further eight months to catch up but the compulsory system must be definitively introduced in all Member States and for everyone marketing beef on 1 September 2000.
The Commission has time until then to submit implementing provisions for the compulsory system.
At the same time, the European Parliament and the Council will decide on a new version of Regulation 820/97 under a codecision procedure.
This approach will enable the compulsory system to be introduced earlier than envisaged by the Commission in its proposal and will give all those concerned sufficient time to find a lasting and satisfactory solution.
In conclusion, I should like once again to thank my colleagues in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for taking account of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development; I think it is important, here and now, for the European Parliament to speak with one voice and to send out a clear signal on this matter of fundamental importance to consumers.
I would also like, once again, to thank all those who have worked on this and the services for their fast work and self-sacrifice.
The last decades of the twentieth century have been punctuated by a series of food scares.
In many cases genuine concerns are blown out of proportion as the media indulge in a feeding frenzy, seldom letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
Maybe we do not have enough journalists with a scientific background able to quantify issues like risk or possibly, as I suspect, a sensational front page headline which will sell a newspaper is more important than giving consumers information on which to judge their buying decisions.
Product labelling is one important way in which this misinformation can be countered.
It is, of course, possible to go too far and give technical data that confuses rather than informs.
When the details of this and other directives are considered I hope we can have at the back of our minds the mother trailing two or three irritable children around the supermarket.
She does not have time to read a detailed data sheet.
She needs to see at a glance the information on the origin, production method and other details in a simple, unambiguous way.
At present food labelling is at best vague, at worst deliberately misleading.
For example, one could be forgiven for thinking that bacon labelled "packed in the UK" was produced in Britain under our most stringent welfare standards; not so.
And shepherd's pie labelled "product of the UK" may contain beef from Botswana, Zimbabwe or anywhere else in the world.
This is not good enough.
Labelling rules should address these problems.
I now come to the intolerable situation we find ourselves in today regarding the extension of the voluntary beef labelling scheme.
What would be the attitude of the EU if it were a company, not a country, that chose to ignore legislation which other similar businesses were complying with? The full force of the law would be unleashed of course.
We have the situation that 12 of the 15 Member States have not introduced a voluntary system of beef labelling and are therefore not in a position to move to a compulsory scheme in January.
The Commission blames the Member States for not providing information about the lack of action in time for the proper democratic procedures to ensue.
They should, however, have been aware of how the situation was developing and I am sure a few telephone calls would soon have put the Commission in the picture.
Today, despite the fact that both the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on the Environment of this Parliament were asked to consider this extension, the Council has decided to ignore this House and change the legal basis for this decision, despite the fact that the amendments proposed were both practical and reasonable and could have been adopted under codecision.
This is an insult to the Members of the European Parliament.
It is particularly important, finally, that consumers know where the beef they are consuming comes from.
In the wake of the BSE crisis we must make it simple for people to identify the safest beef available, which is, of course, British.
Could I also urge Commissioner Byrne to introduce a compensation scheme for British beef farmers who are being hit by the illegal action of the French Government? The cost of this scheme can be recouped from the French when, as surely as day follows night, they lose their court case.
British farmers need help now, not the promise of compensation later when some of them will be bankrupt and beyond help.
Mr President, we return for the second time today to the grave crisis over beef, its safety and circulation within this Union under the rule of law.
All of us believe that we need the measures which were promised by the Commission back in 1997.
We need them especially because of the crisis through which we are passing.
The issue of the identification of beef products and the certainty that they can be relied upon is as much at the heart of the dispute between France and the European Union as it is at the heart of the concerns of safety which have preoccupied both the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on the Environment over the last two years.
I want to congratulate Mr Papayannakis on his patience over the last few weeks.
We are all concerned about the apparent fait accompli in the statement by the Council.
We are having this debate in a legislative vacuum if we have no flexibility of amendment.
We see Regulation No 820/97 slipping away from us into a morass of half-observed voluntary practices with no immediate prospects of the compulsory scheme which every Member of this House knows is necessary.
That is partly a result of Member State inertia, but I cannot exempt the Commission from its own responsibilities.
They far pre-date Mr Byrne's arrival in office.
But now, as he has to clear up this mess, we ought to hear from him how he will do so.
The amendments of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy set out to remedy this with a remission of eight months maximum.
Some of our amendments clarified and strengthened Article 152 as the legal base.
Today the Council is urging that Article 37 be added to the legal base.
This is surely an issue of health and consumer protection.
I want to hear from Commissioner Byrne that he will be the defender of everything that was implied in Article 152 once it is added to the Treaty.
The whole point of this is that it gives us a right to intervene, a right to be consulted and to be participants in the process of codecision.
That right, so recently granted to Parliament post-Amsterdam, is now being snatched away.
That has been the cri de coeur of Mr Papayannakis throughout our discussions in the Environment Committee.
It is an absolutely scandalous state of affairs that we are sitting here in a nine-tenths empty parliamentary Chamber, one week before Christmas, seeing a regulation which will come into effect no-one knows when or how, with a Council which is treating us with an aloof contempt.
I do not believe it is good enough.
I do not believe Mr Byrne thinks so either.
Mr President, it is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable that the EU Commission is to shelve consumers' justified demands to know about the origin of the foods we all eat.
The EU Parliament ought to put the screws on and ensure that all EU countries label beef and register cattle.
Back in 1997, the governments of the EU countries resolved in the Council to implement labelling and registration.
This has unfortunately only happened in fairly few countries, and there is a tremendous amount of trouble getting the resolution implemented in a number of other countries where not even a start has been made on setting up a labelling system.
For the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, it is crucially important that consumers' confidence should not merely be preserved but also increased, that public health should be protected and that the quality of foodstuffs should be high.
It is therefore completely unacceptable that the Commission should not have put this important area in order.
Consumers should be able to rely upon the quality of the beef they buy, and they can only do that if it is possible to monitor the animal concerned from its birth until such time as the beef ends up on the dinner table.
That is to say, the animal' s country of origin, the country in which it was slaughtered, the name of the abattoir and the identity of the butchers should be known.
The Commission' s proposal to postpone compulsory labelling and registration is quite unacceptable.
We can support Mr Heinz Kindermann' s opinion and we also expect at least EUR 15 million to be allocated for the purpose, for it is an urgent matter to get these arrangements in place.
Mr President, Mr Byrne, you have presented the Council decision to us here today.
I agree with you that this is really the task of the Council, but I would like to refer to the seventh point, which says that there must be a labelling provision as soon as possible in consultation with the European Parliament.
I consider this passage to be cynical, given that this paper again excludes the European Parliament from codecision.
It is the same approach as that taken in 1997 when the Commission proposed codecision to us and Parliament and the Commission tabled a proposal.
We made a great deal of effort only to see the Council unanimously reject the proposal and decide without Parliament.
That meant that the Council had taken over responsibility. The Council failed to fulfil its responsibility to implement what it itself had decided in Article 19, namely to issue implementing provisions on 1.1.2000.
Then Parliament was again taken to task and again it fulfilled its obligation.
We have not moaned and groaned, we have sat down and got on with the work - on the subject of which, Mr Papayannakis, heartfelt thanks to you as rapporteur and to Mr Kindermann, the rapporteur for the Committee on Agriculture, and to the administration and legal service.
Everyone has made an effort!
There was good coordination between the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on the Environment.
We negotiated with the Commission.
We put our cards on the table and said, excuse me, but we have a contribution to make to this procedure.
The result: do or die!
If you want to be part of the procedure, then you must divorce yourself from it as far as the content is concerned, otherwise we will not accept your case!
Mr Byrne, you said earlier that the decision now rests with Parliament.
This means that if we adopt what you have submitted to us, then it will go through.
If we table amendments which really are justified, over which we have taken time and trouble, then you will decide without us.
This is a snub to Parliament by the Council which we are not prepared to accept.
Now to the role of the Commission.
The Commission has told us that there is no longer any time for implementing provisions. Please, indulge us!
We are indulgent and where does it get us? Since the way in which we have amended it obviously does not suit you, you go on to the next proposal by introducing the compulsory system under Article 19, saying at the same time that the voluntary system will be extended by one year, thereby excluding Parliament from the process.
That too is a snub to Parliament which we cannot accept.
We take the view that Article 19 does not legally allow this postponement.
We have been involved in a procedure since the 1997 decision and we shall most probably find ourselves involved in a procedure again after this decision, which means, furthermore that it would be in the consumers' interest to draw up an urgently needed timetable with us in order to ensure the reasonable and timely application of this compulsory labelling system.
Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate and to open with the comment that an early and satisfactory resolution of the controversy surrounding food safety is of paramount importance to consumers, to our farmers and indeed to the food industry.
Already the fall-out from BSE has cost farmers millions of pounds and left consumers both confused and bewildered.
While not detracting from the seriousness of the situation, the impact on consumer confidence has been far greater in my view than the actual threat to public health.
It is for this reason that we must quickly put beyond doubt the safety of all food, including beef, through a credible and totally transparent traceability programme.
Delays at this stage are unacceptable and Parliament must keep up the pressure on the Council and on Member States to conform fully with our revised food laws.
It has been agreed to accept the recommendations of the Scientific Committee as the basis for all decisions on the public health aspect of food production.
To do otherwise in my view would be to politicise unnecessarily what is now a priority EU agenda and indeed would do nothing to restore consumer and farmer confidence.
I sat through an earlier debate relating to this today and one might wonder whether Parliament is united in accepting the basic principle of the recommendations of the Scientific Committee.
From a consumer perspective, labelling is, of course, part of the resolution of this problem.
It must be clear, it must be understandable: a point that has been made here on many occasions, but it is not the answer to the public health aspect of food production.
I believe our farmers - and, if I may say so, particularly Irish farmers - have no difficulty in producing a product of the highest quality and safety.
In many respects they have been made the scapegoats in the present controversy and are certainly paying a high price for a crisis that was not of their direct making.
I very much welcome the leadership provided by the new Commissioner, Mr Byrne, and his commitment to the establishment of an EU food safety agency.
I know, Commissioner, that you are doing everything possible to bring this proposal to fruition as quickly as possible and it is very important that you do so.
The European agricultural model, based on family farms, in my view provides the infrastructure necessary to give our consumers quality and choice.
That particular concept of the agricultural model has been debated and agreed on by our Committee on Agriculture and indeed by Parliament too.
It has been reflected in the Agenda 2000 proposals.
I want to make the point that in our anxiety to protect consumers we must be equally careful not to over-regulate a sector which has the capacity to produce a diverse range of quality food.
In my view there is no substitute for the quality of beef, lamb and pork produced by European farmers.
This fact must be fully reflected in the trade talks still to get under way in Seattle, where our competitors in world trade will have a vested interest in frustrating our efforts to put our agriculture and food sector on a sound and competitive footing.
Mr President, Commissioner, as far as the labelling of beef is concerned, we are not debating the substance here today but the timetable, which needs to be laid down.
We are also debating the highly topical issue of the Council' s approach and the Commission' s behaviour and position.
The Commission has submitted two proposals to us on beef labelling, one which makes beef labelling compulsory in Member States as of 1 January 2001 and one which is drafted as a transitional regulation up to 31 December 2000, i.e. voluntary labelling.
The timetable submitted by the Commission must be rejected in the interests of the consumer.
Mr Kindermann has submitted what I consider to be a convincing timetable.
The European Parliament should agree to voluntary labelling up to 31 August 2000, with compulsory labelling to be introduced as quickly as possible.
Only in this way can we send out a clear signal to anxious consumers.
There can be no question of continuing to allow the slowest link in the chain to set the pace.
Nor can there be any question of the new Commission continuing to hide behind what to me look very like the old delaying tactics.
The delay in the implementation of the regulation cannot be ascribed solely to the Commission and individual Member States.
In other words, this approach would have been totally unnecessary if the Commission had acted promptly at the time.
Then there is the point that the applicable Regulation 820/97 still contains the obligation to introduce the compulsory system by 1 January 2000.
The Commission' s excuse for the delay is that the Member States were late sending in the necessary reports on the implementation of the labelling system.
I really do wonder if the model pupils in the Member States are again being punished here.
We must not tolerate this cat-and-mouse game by the Commission any longer!
You should know, Mr Byrne, that none of us can afford to put on such airs and graces.
You should bear in mind that we really want to decide on this proposal under the codecision procedure. Consumer interests must come first.
Consequently, we should, in my opinion, support the timetable suggested by Mr Kindermann in tomorrow' s vote.
With this timetable we really can send a signal to our anxious consumers and we should all bear in mind that we sit here as the representatives of the people, that we have been elected by the consumers and that it is we Members of Parliament who must lay ourselves open time and again to discussions with our citizens.
I have the impression that the Council has already distanced itself from them by quite some way.
Mr President, the European Parliament is in favour of these measures and has also shown that it is in favour of operating in a flexible way so that these measures are implemented effectively.
But the European Parliament is against the use of deadlines as an excuse for this measure never being implemented.
The manoeuvring of the Council and its secrecy with Parliament, Mr President, are increasing our suspicions in this respect to the point where we almost want to accuse them of having something to hide.
Neither do I share the euphoria of those who think that, by means of labels, we are going to do away with food fraud, nor do I share the fears of those who think that this is a form of renationalisation.
It is simply a measure which will offer the consumer more information, and that is significant, Mr President, at a time when, in the European Union, confidence in food safety has been eroded.
Therefore, we believe that the Council has made a big mistake and must put it right as soon as possible.
Mr President, Commissioner, only last week did the annual BAMST workshop take place at the University of Ghent.
BAMST stands for Belgian Association for Meat Science and Technology.
This year' s theme was traceability, a means to guarantee the quality of meat and meat products.
Professor Jan Van Hoof gave a clear overview of the situation in Belgium in terms of traceability of meat and it should be said: there is finally some good news from the Belgian federation.
Together with France and Finland, we are the only country which has completed the implementation of the present directive.
However, what the Council and Commission are trying to dish up here today beggars belief.
I support the observations made by all those who have intervened in the debate so far.
This joint protest from our Committees on Agriculture and the Environment ensures that we want to put a stop to the Commission' s proposals and rightly so.
A three-year delay for a compulsory regulation is unacceptable to us.
Even a one year delay is.
Let there be no mistake: we want the compulsory regulation in place by 1 September.
Let this be a warning to the Council.
If necessary, we will call on the Court of Justice.
This is a violation of Community Law; a gross insult.
I therefore urge all those present to fully approve rapporteur Papayannakis' report.
We will take a hard line on this.
After all, we want to use compulsory labelling as a means to help those who want to restore consumer confidence in meat.
This should happen sooner rather than later.
Mr President, as I am the last to speak, I shall not repeat what everyone else has said.
I would first like to answer the English Member this evening, as there are not many of us and we are all friends here, without stirring up any controversy.
I have already said in this Chamber that British and Irish farmers are in a difficult situation and we must help them.
We must work out who should pay and we must make the calculations together.
If France has to pay - and perhaps the courts will decide that it must - French politicians will accept their responsibilities, but neither should we forget that those who have not respected the rules on the treatment of meal and who have placed us in this situation must also pay.
We must certainly not forget them.
Commissioner, my only concern is that the 1997 political commitment not be jeopardised. Why is the Council taking a step backwards?
Who are the pressure groups? Knowing, as we do, what has happened throughout the European meat industry and what is still happening in other countries, I wonder.
Are there pressure groups forcing it to move backwards, to go back on what has already been done in this industry in terms of labelling and also in terms of the consumer in order to clarify things?
Can you tell us Commissioner, what proposals you have presented to the Council? Because normally, unless I am mistaken, the Commission makes several proposals to the Council when discussions are held, as was the case yesterday.
How do you expect the citizen and consumer to understand this backwards step? Why is the Council rejecting Parliament' s proposal?
These are certainly not budgetary measures. As far as abattoirs and traceability are concerned, I think that the Council is adopting a contrary attitude, and will have to accept sole responsibility.
I agree with today' s speakers that Parliament must make the Council aware of this.
I am therefore counting on you, Commissioner, to act rapidly - and this will be our New Year present for the end of 1999 and in that way Parliament will not be disappointed at the beginning of 2000.
You can still intervene and you can still change the Council' s mind.
The second point which I would like to draw to your attention before the start of 2000 is this: let us not wait until December, as we have waited this year until November, to put a definitive regulation on the table. This will enable us to apply it as rapidly as possible, for which, moreover, Mr Papayannakis' excellent report makes provision.
Let me begin with a word of apology for my delayed arrival this afternoon.
Unfortunately, weather conditions in Brussels led to the cancellation of this morning's flight and therefore I was unable to be present in person to update Parliament on the BSE dispute.
This has led I know to a change in the schedule of Parliamentary business with this important debate now taking place late in the evening.
I have been informed of all the work of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on this proposal.
I would like to congratulate Mr Papayannakis, the rapporteur, and Mr Kindermann, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
The business before us is the Commission proposal to extend the existing voluntary labelling requirements under Regulation (EC) No 820/97 for a further year.
I am very aware that Parliament is deeply unhappy that a compulsory labelling regime is not in place as envisaged with effect from 1 January 2000.
I note that there is a proposed amendment which criticises the Commission and certain Member States for this delay.
However there were good and justifiable reasons for this delay.
Firstly, Member States did not submit the required reports on existing arrangements in sufficient time.
Secondly, not all Member States will be in a position to establish reliable registration and identification systems for all animals.
Finally, the last Commission took a decision, following its resignation, not to present any major new political initiatives and I understand that Parliament agreed with that proposal.
This Commission was therefore faced with a very difficult situation.
There was a very tight deadline, 1 January 2000, within which to agree a proposal laying down general rules for a compulsory system to apply from that date.
Quite simply, with the best will in the world, this deadline cannot be met.
The proposal has been made under the codecision procedure but full agreement between the Community institutions cannot be expected for several months.
This is the minimum time necessary to agree such important issues.
In these circumstances, the Commission also presented a second proposal to prolong the existing voluntary arrangements provided for under Regulation (EC) No 820/97.
This is also in accordance with the codecision procedure.
It therefore is also confronted with the very pressing deadline of 1 January 2000.
The challenge is to reach full agreement within the next week or so.
Yesterday the Council discussed this second Commission proposal for a prolongation of the existing regime.
The Council agreed an orientation on this proposal with only one amendment - the addition of Article 37 alongside Article 152 - to the legal base.
This is, of course, a major amendment which, in my opinion, does not favour a quick conclusion to the codecision procedure.
Any amendment by Parliament to the Commission's proposal, which is contrary to the orientation agreed by the Council yesterday is equally certain to block any progress towards agreement before the end of this year.
This puts both the Parliament and the Commission in a very difficult situation.
You will be very aware of the implications.
In these circumstances, the Commission has a responsibility to act.
As already signalled, the Commission would be obliged, in order to avoid a legal void, to present a third proposal.
This third proposal would be based on Article 19 of the existing Regulation (EC) No 820/97 and would prolong the existing arrangements providing for voluntary labelling.
My intention would be to examine carefully your amendments with a view to seeing in what measure they can be considered.
On this point I must underline that certain amendments which aim to shorten delays go in the direction of improved consumer protection, which of course is an issue that is close to my heart.
I can in this context accept amendments which aim to shorten the period during which the existing arrangements can continue for a period of eight months.
However, I cannot accept your amendments concerning bringing forward the labelling of place of slaughter with effect from 1 January 2000.
I have a lot of sympathy for this amendment and signal to the Council a strong wish to have it considered in their common position.
Indeed, yesterday in Council I drew the Council's attention to the fact that there was an amendment put forward by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on Monday.
However, there was virtually no support.
It is also a provision which would perhaps be better addressed in the main proposal on the general rules.
This proposal is also currently before the Council and Parliament.
The Commission cannot accept the proposed amendment to drop the requirement for real debate between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the main proposal based on Article 152 of the Treaty.
This would be the consequence if this amendment is adopted: Parliament would give up its important obligation to participate in this debate.
I should like to add that the debate is still open in relation to the Commission proposal on the general rules applying an obligatory regime.
It is in this context that the main debate should take place.
It is unfortunate that discussions of these very complex and important issues have had to take place in the context of an emergency decision with a near-impossible deadline.
The Commission is of the view that Article 152 is the appropriate legal base.
This is an extremely important and contested issue which is currently before the Court of Justice.
On this question the Commission cannot agree to the addition of Article 37.
There is little or no appetite in the Member States for a fully compulsory system from 1 January 2000.
We cannot ignore this reality, nor can we assume that we have a better idea of the obligations involved than the Member States.
Member States can choose to impose compulsory labelling for beef cattle born, raised and slaughtered on their own territory.
Only three have chosen to do so.
The Commission is in favour of full, compulsory labelling.
It is therefore proposed that it should take place from 1 January 2001 for place of slaughter and, in addition, from 1 January 2003 for place of birth and fattening.
I can assure you that I am committed to this particular proposal and to the question of compulsory labelling.
It is my intention to pursue that in the period of time I am in office, and to do so quickly.
Turning to some of the questions that were raised by some of you, I will try to give you some answers in relation to these issues.
In relation to the question raised by Mr Papayannakis when he said: "You are trying to fool us here". I am not sure if the interpreters made some kind of mistake.
I would like to place a benign interpretation on those words rather than a malign one, because they are open to the interpretation that I am attempting to mislead Parliament.
That, as you know, Mr Papayannakis, is one of the most serious charges that can be laid against anybody.
If that was your intention I reject it and resent it.
I have always been open with Parliament.
On the first day I came here, when I spoke at my hearings in September, I made it absolutely clear that it was my intention to be open and transparent with Parliament.
I have appeared in Parliament in plenary session on many occasions in the short time that I have been Commissioner.
I have appeared before committees of this House on a number of occasions also.
Never once in that period of time was any such suggestion made to me.
I do not accept it.
Mr President, it would be the easiest thing in the world for me just to apologise.
I think you misunderstood what I said.
It is not in my nature to be insulting when discussing politics.
I do not know what the interpreter said, but under no circumstances did I mean that I had a problem with you, not by any stretch of the imagination.
However, Commissioner, the essence of my political question remains and, if you would care to, please reply to it.
Did the Council decide yesterday to postpone for a year without waiting to see what we wanted, yes or no? Did the Council decide yesterday to circumvent Parliament' s opinion, yes or no?
These are not insults, Commissioner. They are serious conclusions based on the Council' s action.
Obviously, you have no reason in the final analysis to act as Council' s advocate.
I therefore repeat that under no circumstances did I intend any slight on your honour or your reputation and if you think that I did or if you were given any cause to do so, I apologise.
However, I repeat, the problem is how you interpret what the Council did yesterday.
You have no reason to try and defend it.
I am happy to say that I accept the explanation and apology offered by Mr Papayannakis and the gracious way in which he has done so.
Let us put it down to interpretation difficulties.
In response to his question, he is perfectly right.
I am not here to answer for Council and all I can say is that I read out the conclusions of the Council yesterday.
I should say that the Council did not adopt this as its decision, but rather said that this was its view, its orientation, but made it clear that it would have to await the outcome of Parliament's decision tomorrow on this particular issue before finally voting on the issue and adopting a position.
For that reason I understand that this issue is going back to one of the Councils before the end of this year for finalisation, having regard to what Parliament said today and what Parliament will vote on and decide tomorrow.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 10.00 a.m.
BST
The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0098/1999) by Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the placing on the market of bovine somatotrophin (BST) and repealing Council Decision 90/218/EEC [COM(1999) 544 - C5-0250/1999 - 1999/0219(CNS)].
Mr President, I am not speaking on behalf of my group.
I will vote with the majority of my group as I always do when they decide in a democratic way, but I am afraid I do not hold the same view as Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert.
She made her case very well and she "threw the book at it".
There was no conceivable argument against use or about the possible dangers that might occur that she did not invoke.
I find myself in the same position I found myself in many years ago when, on the initiative of Parliament, we banned natural hormones in the production of beef.
We cost the European beef producers something like EUR 12 to 15 billion.
In the meantime we did not enhance the safety of beef.
We based our decision on political ideology rather than scientific investigation.
The truth is that we ban American beef today because those hormones are there; but the truth is also that we know that, if we allowed the Americans to sell that beef into our market, at good value to our consumers, and if we were to put a label on it saying those hormones were there, they would still buy it.
We know that.
If we did not know that, why would we ban it? Let them come with their beef and if our consumers are so concerned they would not eat it anyway.
But I do not believe they are so concerned.
It is the same with this product we propose to ban today.
It is motivated by ideology rather than science.
I believe we have a committee called the CVM.
This committee for veterinary medical products which works within the European Medicines Evaluation Agency concluded that BST was safe, efficacious and of suitable quality.
As such, they recommended that the product was suitable for release.
They found that it did not affect the health of animals and that it was a natural product that did not affect the health of human beings.
We had another committee which gave a different point of view.
My understanding is that it is the committee that gave the all-clear which is the committee on which we are relying.
The only thing I want to say to the Commissioner is, could he please tell us which advice he is taking?
Does he regard the committee whose advice he rejects as incompetent, unable to judge what is good for animals or dangerous for human health? Is he going to dismiss them and refuse to accept their advice or opinions any more?
Mr President, today we are at last discussing the definitive ban on the administration and marketing of BST in the European Union and, hopefully, this will mark an end to the ten-year process during which the final decision has been postponed time and time again on the grounds, of course, that there was no conclusive scientific evidence which justified a definitive ban.
We are now in possession of this evidence and it confirms that the use of this hormone pushes cows to their physiological limits.
The consequences are leg and foot injuries, stomach/intestinal malfunctions and impaired fertility, not to mention the increase in mastitis.
Cows are therefore subjected to unnecessary pain.
This is unacceptable for reasons of animal welfare, but have all the risks to human health been excluded?
What about BST residues in the body which have not been broken down, what about the possible change in the composition of the milk, not to mention the increase in the antibiotics administered in order to treat the sick cows.
I would therefore like to support the rapporteur' s request that we step up efforts to clear up the question of the effect of BST on human health once and for all.
On behalf of the group of the Party of European Socialists, I would like to thank Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert as rapporteur for her rapid work and we, of course, emphatically support her report.
Mr President, we are able to support the rapporteur' s opinion, but I should like to make a few comments.
We agree that the investigations which have been made into animals' health are of decisive importance to our resolution and are also of decisive importance to the fact that BST ought not to be used here in the EU.
That is to say, we support Article 1.
When we talk about public health, however, I must however say that we still have a number of problems with the results of the seventeen scientific investigations which were not able to distinguish the naturally produced BST hormones from the artificially manufactured ones.
We ought not to push these scenarios further than can be justified by the scientific evidence.
Articles 2 and 3 deal with continued licence to produce the BST hormone here in the EU.
In my opinion, we are coming close here to practising a double standard.
When I think about everything that was said here this evening and in recent months about BST hormones, of the trade war with the United States and about American beef produced using hormones, I feel we are near to courting a double standard, when these hormone preparations are manufactured here in Europe and subsequently sold to the United States which then uses the BST hormone.
I cannot therefore support the wordings of Articles 2 and 3.
Mr President, I endorse the statements made by the rapporteur and Mr Kindermann and there is no need for me to repeat them.
I would like to express my satisfaction at having reached the point where, after years of discussion, we can consider the matter closed.
I should like to stress once again that we must be very careful when it comes to using genetically engineered drugs for preventative purposes.
Unlike in the health sector, no side effects can be tolerated in agricultural applications.
I should like to make another point as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
We have agreed on Amendment No 3.
There was also an oral proposal for an amendment which was agreed with the Commission.
I will not go into the details, but it was not included in the report.
I should like my request for this to be clarified, entered in the Minutes and for us to have the version that we have in fact agreed upon at tomorrow' s vote.
As I have said, it was agreed with the Commission.
Mr President, firstly I would like to congratulate Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert on the report and the urgency with which she has carried it out.
I would like to stress to the Commission - which only now is delivering us a document which was drawn up at the end of October - that Parliament has had to work against the clock.
In fact, we only have a few days before the expiry of the deadline for the most recent extension of the deferral of the Regulation whose derogation by the Commission we are going to vote on.
This deadline expires on 1 January of the coming year.
Therefore, I would ask the Commission - so as not to repeat all the arguments expressed by the previous speakers - to send us documents more quickly so that we do not have to work against the clock.
I would like to stress once again that the consumers do not want BST.
Consumers refuse to accept the idea of cows producing milk containing BST. This hormone is never used for medicinal reasons.
It is only used to produce more milk, and this can cause us problems, since we have a surplus of dairy products. Furthermore, problems may arise with regard to our agriculture, as well as negative reactions to it and there may be contradictions in our new Community Agricultural Policy guidelines.
I would also like to point out to the Commission that it must continue to investigate the possible effects of BST on consumers' health.
At the moment they do not seem to be harmful, but nor do they seem to be entirely harmless.
Therefore, Commissioner, Parliament, which is working rigorously and is taking its work ever more seriously, requests that you do not make us work against the clock and that, furthermore, you take account of the reactions and proposals which we make, which often end up in the waste paper bin.
Mr President, the greatest problem I have with the text on which we are going to vote tomorrow - I have just acquired a copy - lies in article 3 of the Commission proposal, according to which we would ban these substances in the European Union. I ask the Commission to listen because I am going to ask for clarification; according to this article we would vote for a ban on these substances within the European Union, but this ban would not affect their manufacture or marketing within the European Union, since we could send them to another Member State with a view to their export to third countries.
Mr President, this is not acceptable to me, since if we ban these substances and their marketing within the European Union, as the agreement says, it would not be legal to be able to send them, within the European Union, to another Member State.
Nor would it be legal, as we are currently doing, to produce them in a Member State.
Therefore, I would ask you to clarify whether this is the case because, according to this text and according to the Commission, this ban would not affect marketing or exporting to third countries.
Mr President, I believe that this would be extremely hypocritical.
What we do not want for ourselves, we allow for others when it is a question of earning money.
I believe that everything has its limit, and if we have principles for ourselves, we must hold the same principles with regard to non-EU countries; and, of course, within the European Union, we cannot produce, manufacture or market these substances.
I should like to thank Parliament for having admitted this proposal as an urgent point so it would be dealt with before the end of this year.
As you know, the Council has already banned - in 1990 - the placing on the market and the use of BST on dairy cows under Council Decision 90/218/EEC.
The moratorium was extended by the Council in 1994 until 31 December 1999 by Council Decision 94/936/EC.
Article 2 of Council Decision 94/936/EC provided that the Commission had to entrust a working party of independent scientists with the task of assessing the effects of using BST.
Before putting a new proposal on the table of the Council the Commission was waiting for the opinions of the two scientific committees which were delivered on 18 March 1999.
The Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health recognised that there could be possible links with prostate and breast cancer and, in view of the lack of evidence, indicated that further studies were necessary.
Secondary risks are possible: allergic reactions and an increased use of anti-microbial substances.
The lack of evidence will oblige the Commission to follow very closely all scientific research into the potential adverse affects on human health of dietary exposure to products derived from BST-treated cows and, if necessary, make recommendations for further preventative measures.
The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare adopted on 10 March 1999 its report on animal welfare aspects of the use of bovine somatotrophin and stated that BST increases the risk of clinical mastitis as well as the duration of treatment of mastitis, it increases the incidence of foot and leg disorders and it can affect adversely reproduction and induce several severe reactions at the injection site.
Therefore it follows from that opinion of the SCAHAW that BST should not be used in dairy cows.
The protocol on protection and welfare of animals annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community calls on the Community and Member States when formulating and implementing the Community's agricultural policy to pay full regard to the health and welfare requirements of animals.
By Decision 78/923/EEC the Community approved the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.
All Member States have also ratified this convention.
Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes states that no other substance, with the exception of those given for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes, shall be administered to an animal unless it has been demonstrated by scientific studies of animal welfare or of established experience that the effect of the substance is not detrimental to the health or welfare of the animal.
BST is not used in cattle for therapeutic purposes but only to enhance milk production and has detrimental effects on the animals.
In the light of this opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, the Commission - moved by me at its meeting of 28 October - adopted a decision proposing a permanent ban on the marketing and use of BST in the Community as from 1 January 2000 in accordance with the provisions laid down in Council Decision 98/58/EC on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.
For the purpose of clarification I should say that BST is not for sale in Europe, but it is manufactured here.
There is one company manufacturing BST in the European Union.
It is authorised for export to third countries only.
It is not authorised for sale in the European Union.
I should also say that any further steps to ban its manufacture for sale outside the European Union would not have a legal base and would be something outside the competence of the Commission.
Mr President, I would like the Commissioner to clarify whether a piece of information that I have is correct. It appears that this substance is manufactured in Austria, from there it goes to Holland and from Holland it is exported to non-EU countries.
Commissioner, is it true that it is manufactured in Austria, from there goes to Holland and from Holland is exported?
The Commissioner' s words confirm that this is the case, that within the European Union we are manufacturing it and marketing it.
Yes, for clarification purposes, I can say that it is manufactured in a factory in Austria; that it is, I am instructed, bottled in the Netherlands for export to third countries, but not for sale within the European Union.
I should say that there is no legal base for preventing that particular manufacture or trans-shipment through the Netherlands for sale to third countries.
Award of the Sakharov Prize to Mr Xanana Gusmão
Mr Gusmão, on behalf of the European Parliament and myself, I must say that it is an honour and a very great pleasure for us to welcome you to this House.
We were overjoyed to hear of your release just three months ago on 7 September.
You showed admirable and unyielding courage throughout your detention which began on 20 November 1992.
You managed to retain your inner freedom despite the ill treatment which you endured, particularly in psychological terms, and which was intended to prevent you from making your defence.
During your trial, you had the skill and found the strength to denounce before the world' s press the genocidal nature of the occupation of East Timor.
Despite the extremely difficult conditions of your imprisonment, you found the courage to take advantage of these circumstances to develop strategies for resistance, to study languages and law and also to write wonderful poems and paint pictures which you very kindly gave to me just now.
I trust you will permit me to give a brief resumé of your life for the benefit of the House.
Originally from East Timor, the eldest child of teachers, you studied mainly at the Catholic mission of Nossa Senhora di Fatima.
You started work at a very early age as a schoolteacher.
Before the age of 30, you joined the team of the A vos de Timor newspaper.
At the same time, you became actively involved in the central committee of the Fretilin resistance movement or the Revolutionary Front for the Independence of East Timor.
During the invasion of your country by Indonesia, you went into hiding.
After three years, you became the head of the guerrilla unit Falintin which was the armed wing of the resistance movement.
According to the press, the repressive occupation claimed 200 000 victims, a third of the population.
You worked tirelessly to find a peaceful solution.
You proposed a peace plan to the Indonesian Government and talks under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation.
You wanted to take the fight for a free East Timor beyond party politics and so you brought together the various forces within the National Council of Timorese Resistance.
You can be sure that this House is proud of having helped, by participating in the pressure exerted by the international community, to prompt the Indonesian President, Mr Habibi, to release you on 7 September. This came just after the referendum of 30 August in which 70.5% of the population of East Timor voted in favour of independence.
The European Parliament, in its work chaired by Vice-President Pacheco Pereira, has been delighted with the courage shown by the Timorese people to the whole world.
Like Mr Mandela in South Africa, you are the spokesperson for peace, justice and freedom in your country.
Your compatriots and people around the world know that it was with solid conviction that you declared on leaving prison that as a free man, you would undertake to do everything in your power to bring peace to East Timor and to your people.
You said to me just now that everything must now be built or rebuilt, in terms of logistics and training, in the health, justice and public service sectors.
The temporary administration which the UN is going to establish will form a basis for this.
You have declared that you want a pluralist democracy with open institutions, a diversified economy and a role for the press and non-governmental organisations.
We hope that the experience of 25 years of suffering will enable your people to realise this dream.
I am particularly pleased to be able to highlight the favourable influence which the Sakharov Prize has had on the fate of its candidates.
Among these I can think of Mr Ksila of Tunisia and Mr Birdal of Turkey who were released a few days after having been nominated, as well as Mr Mandela in South Africa and Mr Dubèek in the Czech Republic.
With regard to Mrs Suu Kyi and Mrs Zana, I have again spoken to the authorities in their countries to protest about the draconian conditions imposed on their freedom.
All these illustrious people have taken up the torch carried by Andrey Sakharov in making the defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms their life' s goal.
So, Mr Gusmão, on behalf of the whole European Parliament, I am delighted to give you this extremely symbolic prize.
(Loud applause)
Mr Gusmão, the loud applause from my colleagues shows how much they appreciate your very resolute and responsible words.
This confirms, not that there was any need to do so, the support and solidarity shown by this House for the cause of East Timor.
I can assure you that on the new road to independence now open to you which, as you have said, will be a difficult journey, the European Parliament will be at your side in the future as it was yesterday and as it is today. We will give you every assistance in this exhilarating adventure.
Thank you for coming, thank you for being with us and thank you to the Members.
(The sitting was closed at 10.55 p.m.)
Adoption of the Minutes of the previous sitting
The Minutes of yesterday' s sitting have been distributed.
Are there any comments?
Madam President, I had asked the administration to ensure that the Members of the Charter Convention be officially notified to Parliament and I was assured that this would be done.
Then, contrary to the information given to me by the administration, the President in the Chair yesterday morning - it was not you - did not announce the Members of the Convention here orally.
I then asked the President in the Chair to rectify this, which he later did, and announced the ordinary Members of the Convention.
However, I felt that it was important that both the ordinary Members and the deputy Members should be announced and entered in yesterday' s Minutes, so that the whole House and the public know who the Members and deputy Members are.
The Minutes today only contain the names of the ordinary Members, as announced here yesterday.
My request is that, as the names of the deputies can probably no longer be inserted, they should be notified to Parliament and to the public in the Minutes of today' s sitting which will be distributed tomorrow.
Mr Poettering, I too have noticed that only the names of the full members appear in the Minutes.
I propose that the names of the substitutes be announced at 3.00 p.m.
These will then appear in the Minutes of the present sitting.
Madam President, I would like to make a comment to the services because of a certain confusion about the seating arrangements for the Chamber.
The plan that was distributed shows that my colleague Luís Queiró and I, Ribeiro e Castro, should be sitting here.
Therefore, in the Minutes and in the verbatim report of proceedings, both concerning my intervention on Macao and also on the subject of the question to the Bureau at the time of the resolution on Chechnya, I was incorrectly identified as Luís Queiró, my colleague who sits in seat 571, and not by my own name, Ribeiro e Castro, and I sit in seat 662.
I would be grateful if these corrections could be made and if the plan could also be corrected because it shows two Members sitting in the same seat, which is obviously not right.
We will put this right, Mr Ribeiro e Castro.
In any case, it is your card which is recorded when voting.
Madam President, in point 38 of the Minutes, which is Questions to the Council, I have noticed that there is an error in the Spanish and German versions, at least, in that Question 9 is missing.
Question 9 has been omitted in printing.
However, it does mention the speakers on Question 9, but we must correct the fact that it passes from Question 8 to Question 10 without mention of Question 9, which I directed yesterday at the Council.
The intervention which appears here by Mr Martínez Martínez is clearly not related to Question 8, but rather to Question 9, which has not been included.
Mr Martínez Martínez, this mistake is in the French version as well as the Spanish version.
We will, of course, correct this and reintroduce question 9.
Madam President, I have noticed that in a number of reports, my name has been consistently mixed up with that of Frank Vanhecke. I would point out that this gentleman, like myself, is Flemish but that this is where the similarity ends.
I would appreciate it if, in future, the correct Christian name were mentioned after the surname.
We will be very careful about this.
Are there any other comments on the Minutes?
Madam President, yesterday myself and other Members drew your attention to the suspension of the computer service in the Members' offices, which is anticipated to last for thirteen days.
Later yesterday, we received the communication that the Parliament in Brussels will actually be totally inaccessible from 27 December to 2 January.
Such a long suspension of the computer service really does seem excessive.
I would therefore like to ask you if it would be possible to get round this inconvenience by working on one sector at a time, thereby making it possible for the Members to access Parliament even during the Christmas holidays.
Mr Cappato, I can only suggest for the moment that if, for specific reasons, Members wish to enter their offices over this period, they must say so and the necessary steps will be taken so that they can have access to the building and their offices.
I will see if it is possible to go further.
However, for the moment, you know that if you wish to come in individually and you have reason to do so, this can be arranged.
(The Minutes were approved)
Vote
We shall now proceed to the vote. However, we will have to postpone the vote on the budget because, as you know, we are still awaiting confirmation of the agreement with the Council which is giving the matter some final consideration.
We hope it will be inspired. We will only be able to vote on the budget once we have the Council' s response so that we can take this into account.
Report (A5-0090/1999) by Mrs Theato, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the appointment of eight Members of the Court of Auditors (C5-0231/1999, C5-0232/1999, C5-0233/1999, C5-0234/1999, C5-0235/1999, C5-0236/1999, C5-0237/1999, C5-0238/1999 - 1999/0820(CNS))
Madam President, I simply want to say that I would like it to be recorded in the Minutes that, for obvious reasons, I am going to abstain from this vote, since it affects me directly.
Furthermore, not only am I not going to vote, but I am actually going to leave the Chamber.
Thank you, Mr Fabra Vallés.
We wish you good luck.
(Parliament adopted the eight resolutions in successive votes)
Recommendation for second reading (A5-0099/1999) by Mr Murphy, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions (8790/1999 - C5-0125/1999 - 1998/0099(COD))
Thank you, Mr Poettering. Your intervention is totally justified and I am very happy to enter this item on the agenda of the Conference of Presidents' meeting which is scheduled for this afternoon.
Madam President, I have no comment to make.
That was a procedural matter not actually related to the report itself.
We should vote.
I agree.
Mr Poettering was not actually opposing the vote on this report but, as you wished to speak, I gave you the opportunity to do so.
Madam President, following on from Mr Poettering' s intervention, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, yesterday, on the subject of Chechnya, I raised precisely the same kind of problem and drew attention to the need to strictly adhere to the Rules of Procedure.
I regret that, at that moment, Mr Poettering was not as sensitive...
(The President cut the speaker off)
Mr Ribeiro e Castro, we will look at all these questions in the Conference of Presidents' meeting.
Madam President, a brief comment on what Mr Poettering has said.
In principle, we take exactly the same view.
I should just like to point out that, if we adhere strictly to this principle, we shall have huge problems at the January plenary because a great deal has yet to be decided in the committees.
I would ask Mr Poettering to use his influence in his group to ensure that the committees are able to vote on time.
However, it is a perfectly tenable principle for the future.
We will consider all these questions in this afternoon' s Conference of Presidents' meeting.
Commissioner, pursuant to Rule 80(5) of our Rules of Procedure, please tell us the Commission' s position on the amendments proposed by the European Parliament to the Murphy report.
Madam President, as my colleague Mr Liikanen explained during yesterday' s debate, the Commission is able to accept the following Amendments: Nos 1, 3, 4, 5, 7-17, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 26.
The Commission can also accept Amendments Nos 6, 20 and 25 in principle.
The Commission does not agree with Amendments Nos 2, 18 and 23.
Thank you, Commissioner.
We shall now proceed to the vote.
(The President declared the common position approved as amended)
Report (A5-0101/1999) by Mr Papayannakis, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (COM(1999) 487 - C5-0241/1999 - 1999/0205(COD))
Absolutely, Mr Papayannakis.
This is an excellent suggestion and I shall give the floor immediately to Mrs Siimes.
Madam President, I can confirm that yesterday, the Council, for its part, formally and finally adopted the compromise package which was offered to COBU.
Mrs Siimes, what you have just said is very encouraging but it relates to a later matter.
Mr Papayannakis' s question concerned another issue, namely his report on the registration of bovine animals and the labelling of beef.
Madam President, if the Council and the Commission are not in a position to clarify this, then I shall endeavour to do so.
The Council did not decide to postpone for a year, but a conclusion was accepted whereby if Parliament accepts a proposed amendment in this report on labelling and does not pass the Commission proposal without proposed amendments, then the Council will not accept any such amendments and will not proceed under the simplified procedure.
If we dare to accept a proposed amendment, the Council will agree to the Commission' s tabling another text which has already been dealt with in the Council.
If it is tabled as an official Commission proposal in accordance with our procedure, then the Council will vote in favour of it.
This proposal will state, in accordance with the procedure in Regulation 820/97, that compulsory labelling is not in fact postponed but that it is allowed, for the purposes of implementation, to continue using voluntary labelling for a further year.
This means that, to all intents and purposes, Parliament has been levered out, although the conclusion is such that we cannot say that they have already made a decision.
A dirty trick has been used to keep us out of the codecision procedure.
This is the second time because this was the case in 1997 when the Council bowled us out of the codecision procedure with a unanimous decision.
We complained about this before the European Court of Justice.
This time, where codecision applies quite clearly under Article 152 of the Amsterdam Treaty, it has used this procedure to bowl us out a second time.
Most probably we shall again discuss renewed recourse to the European Court of Justice to protest against this illegal procedure by the Council.
Thank you, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for this very clear yet very worrying explanation.
Mr Papayannakis, do you consider that we can vote on your report or do you wish to request its referral back to committee? Please indicate your position.
Madam President, we cannot allow my report to be referred back to committee because a decision must be taken by 31 December.
If nothing has been decided by 1 January, there will be a legal void which will cause chaos on the market.
A decision must therefore be made.
It will probably be taken without us but it is right and politically correct, if I may use this term, for Parliament to make a decision.
The Council will likely do whatever it wants but at least we can vote.
I completely agree.
I am sorry to delay things, Madam President, but there is another possibility.
I understand that the Fisheries Council will be meeting tomorrow and that our opinion on the Papayannakis resolution will go to the Fisheries Council.
Now, it is possible for the Fisheries Council, with some goodwill on their part, to take into account our amendments and to adopt the legal text with our amendments.
I suggest that we vote on the Papayannakis report and then you select the most poisonous pen that you have in your armoury and you write on behalf of the Parliament to the Council with the expectation that the Fisheries Council will not simply nod through what was agreed yesterday but will take our amendments into account.
Once again, I can confirm that the Council, for its part, has formally and finally adopted yesterday the package compromise which was offered to COBU.
(Loud applause)
Thank you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council. I now give the floor to our rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges.
Madam President, since an agreement has now been reached with the Council, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance will withdraw its three amendments.
They are Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 9.
Thank you, we will note this.
(Parliament adopted the resolution)
I was not expecting to speak but, as you have asked me, I will do so.
First of all, I am mightily relieved that we have got the vote through.
It has been a tortuous process this particular year for everyone concerned, especially the rapporteurs, Mr Bourlanges, Mr Virrankoski and Mr Colom i Naval - because of the agreements with the Council.
It has been, at times, as Mr Bourlanges said earlier, rather nerve-wracking.
Now that we have got it through I want to thank the Council for the decision that they have taken and thank the Commission for their help.
As a matter of information for Members, with the vote which has gone through now, the total payments will be 1.11% of Europe's GNP which is under the ceiling for the year 2000 of the financial perspective of 1.13% and under the ceiling for own resources of 1.27%.
Thank you, Mr Bourlanges.
Madam President, this budgetary procedure has shown throughout that the European Parliament, together with the Council, can work constructively and observe good budgetary discipline.
The last few days and hours have shown, in particular, that we have a sense of responsibility when attending to the European issues we have in common.
I would especially like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Wynn, and the main rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, for their excellent, constructive and patient cooperation in achieving our common objective.
Similarly, I wish to thank Mrs Siimes, President-in-Office of the Council, and Michaele Schreyer, Commissioner responsible for this area, for their excellent show of cooperation with Parliament.
Finally, I would just like to express my thanks also to all the officials on the Committee on Budgets, who have had to work very long hours and, at the same time, I thank Parliament as a whole and my own group in particular for their steadfast and energetic support at every stage.
Thank you, Mr Virrankoski.
The Commissioner wishes to say a few words so I gladly give her the floor.
Thank you, Madam President. I should like to thank the House for its extraordinary staying power.
It still looked on Monday evening as if numerous wishes would not come true.
It was touch and go with a very important declaration by Parliament, funding to reconstruct Kosovo had not been secured and the Council would have had to pay a great deal more.
Now we have a situation where funding for the reconstruction of Kosovo has been secured, where Parliament has achieved a great number of important objectives and the cost to the Member States has been reduced.
So we have a situation in which a no-win situation has quickly turned into a win-win situation and I think that is a wonderful position to be in for Christmas.
Madam President, this is the first time in fourteen years that I have acted as rapporteur for a budgetary procedure.
I shall be brief.
I simply want to express my agreement with the words of previous rapporteurs and remind you of a political rule: prudence will never make us traitors, and therefore I very much appreciate the solidarity and resolution of the Committee on Budgets, which has allowed us to safeguard the interests of this Parliament as an institution.
Madam President, you have just completed your second reading of the 2000 draft budget.
There remain a few differences between our institutions on the classification of expenditure.
However, the Council can accept the amendments you made to the Letter of Amendment No 2/2 000 as well as the maximum rate of increase which results from your second reading.
Thank you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council.
I too very warmly congratulate the Committee on Budgets and our rapporteurs for the excellent work which has been accomplished.
For my part, this is the first budget which I will have signed as President of the European Parliament and I must say that I am overjoyed by the remarkable result which has been achieved.
Once again, I heartily congratulate and thank those who have contributed to this.
Madam President, I do not know if you are aware of it, but this is an historic moment in the budgetary procedure of the European Union.
For the first time, each of the three institutions is represented here by a woman.
Mr President, I voted for the Colom i Naval report as well as the one on the budget.
The Commission representative said in conclusion: "this is a wonderful position to be in for Christmas" .
Well, I hope that next year too we will vote on the 2001 budget a few days before Christmas, with at least an equivalent increase with regard to this year' s budget.
Let us therefore hope that this type of Christmas present will become a tradition.
2000 Budget
Mr President, the signature of the budget was a scene of satisfaction, adulation, peace and joy.
However, because of a small cutback in funds, about which I wish to protest, I am not totally happy with this budget.
I voted against the budget repeatedly during the last parliamentary term because, despite unanimously approved reports on the worrying situation of beekeepers in Europe, the Commission was simply not prepared to provide the appropriations for the measures which we demanded in order to preserve beekeeping.
Since 1998 we have had a mini-heading of EUR 15 million in the budget to finance 50% of the national programme to improve the production and marketing of honey, based on a regulation which we have criticised as inadequate.
Now we have seen this mini-heading of EUR 15 million for 15 countries reduced by a third to 10 million.
I fail to understand how this could happen, given that the Commission itself quoted a funding requirement of 15 million per annum in its justification of the regulation.
I am grateful to the rapporteur for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Görlach, who also protested about this reduction in his letter to the chairman of the Committee on Budgets.
I should like here to register my protest that the Committee on Budgets has failed to take account of this.
I hope that a way can be found in the Council of Ministers of increasing this budget line to EUR 15 million, as in 1998 and 1999.
I shall, of course, continue to lobby steadfastly until the Commission finally proposes the various measures demanded unanimously by this Parliament to preserve beekeeping in Europe - pollination premiums, inclusion of beekeeping in the structural programmes ...
(Interruption by the President)
... cost EUR 65 million.
That is peanuts in a budget of 90 billion, a mere 0.072%.
(The President cut the speaker off)
Mr President, I am staying here because I have been told that, if one is to hand in explanations of vote, one should be present in the Chamber.
I therefore demand that explanations of vote from those who are not present should not be valid.
Strictly speaking, that is true.
We generally ensure that Members who ask for an explanation of vote are in attendance at the vote.
Normally, provided they have attended the vote we are liberal in the interpretation of the Rule.
Strictly speaking, however, they should be here for their name to be read out.
Mr President, I am presenting a written explanation of vote on behalf of seven Swedish and Danish Members.
We were never told that everyone had to be here when we hand in the explanations of vote so I suggest that this should be valid for all those seven Members.
On this occasion, I am happy to accept that, although I should remind Members that technically they should be in the Chamber to hear their name read out.
We have this procedure at the end of votes where I read out the names of those who have asked for written explanations.
Members do not have to stay through the whole process but they should be here until their name is read out.
Mr President, the President of the European Parliament has just signed this budget for over EUR 90 billion.
It would be good if she could also sign the rather more modest payment orders for the taxi drivers who bring Members here to this House.
I would remind you that these taxi drivers earn about FF 10 000 per sitting or roughly EUR 1 500.
However, they do not receive this payment until three or four months later!
During this time they have to pay VAT at 20.6% and so are effectively giving Parliament a cash advance.
Over three or four months this amounts to about EUR 5 000. By not being able to invest this money, given the free movement of capital which we have authorised, they are losing in the order of FF 1 500 per month.
I am delighted that everyone is rejoicing, including Mr Colom I Naval and Mrs Fontaine, but our taxi drivers and chauffeurs cannot rejoice.
I would remind those who were driven here by these taxi drivers in November that they will not be paid until March.
Mr President, I believe this affects you as much as the rest of us.
It would be good if the taxi drivers, like the beekeepers, could also participate in the joy of Mrs Fontaine and the European Parliament which has achieved what we could call a victory over the Council.
- (SV) We are supporting the Budget adopted by Parliament for the year 2000, the interinstitutional agreement and the Berlin Agreement concerning the long-term Budget.
Following today' s decision in the European Parliament, the EU' s Budget for the year 2000 is an important step in the right direction, that is to say in the direction of the EU taking ever greater responsibility for its citizens.
The Budget provides for significant investments in what are, for us, important areas.
We are delighted to note that our proposal for establishing a separate Budget item for local and regional measures for the areas of the Baltic and the Barents Sea have been voted through by Parliament.
We support the efforts made by Parliament' s Committee on Women' s Rights and Equal Opportunities during the Budget debate when it comes to financing the EU' s equality programme.
Among other things, it is important that non-governmental organisations such as the European Women´s Lobby should not see a deterioration in their opportunities to operate at European level.
We are pleased about the increased resources for dialogue between the two sides of industry, especially with a view to the importance of beginning to construct a well-functioning labour market in the applicant countries, with strong trade-union organisations and good social conditions.
The efforts made in the Budget to reform the common agricultural policy and reduce its costs are a step in the right direction.
We nonetheless call for further efforts to make agricultural policy more oriented to the environment and the consumer, as well as better adjusted to the market.
We call for far-reaching reform, not least with a view to the forthcoming enlargement.
The EU' s agricultural and consumer policies must accord better with one another, especially when it comes to measures in the veterinary area and to measures for the protection of plants.
It must be possible to guarantee food safety throughout Europe.
We are also definitely against the support being given to tobacco cultivation.
Support for tobacco cultivation must be phased out and replaced by support for the cultivation of alternative crops.
When it comes to refunding the travel expenses of Members of the European Parliament, we maintain our view that only actual expenses which have arisen in connection with journeys on official business should be refunded.
We look especially positively upon the resources which have now been allocated to the reconstruction in Kosovo, Turkey and East Timor.
We have worked hard to ensure that it might be possible to procure these resources for the whole of next year.
With a view to financing these initiatives, which are so important, we have in the first place endeavoured to revise the Budget plan, especially in view of the fact that the reconstruction of Kosovo in the course of the next few years will require a lot of aid from the EU over a period of several years.
The Budget process has nonetheless been very complicated and entailed major examinations in cooperation with the Council of Ministers.
In the run-up to next year' s Budget negotiations, it is important that cooperation between Parliament and the Council should be strengthened for the negotiation process.
Better cooperation in the Budget negotiations is a prerequisite of the European Union' s activities being as effective as possible.
With today' s decision, the European Parliament is adopting the EU' s Budget for the year 2000.
This is happening within the Budget framework established at the Berlin Summit in May of this year.
This has been our moderate objective throughout the Budget process.
Had a decision of a different kind been made, there would have been a risk of negative consequences for the EU which would have damaged the EU' s reputation.
If it had been decided to introduce a new financial framework, there would have been a danger of this too proving expensive for the Member States.
With this Budget, the reconstruction of Kosovo will be successfully financed during the year 2000 within the Budget framework.
Before the end of April, the Commission is to come back with proposals to finance the long-term reconstruction work in Kosovo and the western Balkans.
In the first reading of the Budget for the year 2000, the Council of Ministers proposed a 10 per cent linear reduction in category four.
This made it possible to finance the unforeseen expenditure on Kosovo, Turkey and East Timor.
In certain cases, however, there were less than welcome consequences for those Budget items affected by reductions.
In a number of cases, these reductions were subtly modified in the second reading.
This is the result of the Budget authorities' jointly having set necessary priorities.
We view this as something positive.
We are afraid that, at the same time as the needs in Kosovo demand sacrifices and purposefulness, many will want to expand the EU' s Budget and introduce new Budget items.
- (SV) The Budget compromise for the EU' s expenditure for the year 2000 which has been reached between the institutions of the Union is relatively well balanced and therefore welcome.
What constitutes a success, above all, is the fact that a solution has been found to the question of financing the reconstruction in Kosovo.
The previously agreed Budget framework is being maintained, and the same applies to the interinstitutional agreement.
Reductions in Category IV - External Measures (principally Aid) - are now significantly smaller than in the Council' s original proposal.
It is, however, unfortunate that there is an inbuilt rigidity in the Budget negotiations which makes it impossible at this stage to redistribute resources between different Budget categories. This also applies in the case of unforeseen and exceptional occurrences in the world around us.
It would, of course, have been more reasonable to have financed the reconstruction in Kosovo by means of reductions in categories of expenditure other than that of External Measures.
We must ask ourselves what kind of solidarity we have with the world around us when aid to a neighbour is increased by reducing aid to other countries in need.
It would have been possible to achieve significant savings within both the areas of agriculture and of structural and regional policy, as well as within other areas affecting the domestic market, if the preliminary Budget proposal had been complied with to a greater extent.
In spite of this, we see the compromise as a solution which all parties can live with.
We accept that a review of the long-term Budget framework may become necessary during the spring of the year 2000 when a more thorough and stable calculation of the costs of reconstruction in Kosovo and the Balkans will be available.
It is important to combine Budget discipline with a flexibility which allows the European Union to act with solidarity in the case of unforeseen events in the world around us.
Bourlanges/Virrankoski report (A5-0095/1999)
- (FR) For the second time this year, the EU' s credibility is at stake in the Balkans.
The budget for the reconstruction of Kosovo has emerged as the main difficulty at second reading.
The conflict has been extensively discussed in recent weeks by Parliament and the Council but there are certain essential aspects which we must not forget. With regard to the aid granted to Kosovo, it is surprising that this is not conditional on the definitive restoration of peace which has unfortunately not yet been achieved, as indicated by a recent OSCE report.
As for the sums allocated, the members of the Committee on Budgets have participated through the committees in some real bargaining.
The institutions have juggled with millions of euros without anyone really taking the trouble to assess the region' s needs, yet everyone agrees that Kosovo could not actually absorb such sums which are equivalent to half its GNP.
In this respect, we must deplore the lack of rigour shown by the Commissioner responsible for the budget. When questioned by the Committee on Budgets, he was incapable of estimating the amounts needed in euros and could only give these in dollars.
This is not particularly serious and would even raise a smile if, at the same time, the EU' s budget policy and the risk of a review of the financial perspective did not seem to be so contrary to national interests.
The same is true of the rigorous budgetary discipline imposed on the Member States even though the EU is not so strict on itself. This budget 2000 will cost the Member States very dear and the agricultural line is once again the main reason for the increase in external actions.
You can understand the anxiety of European farmers faced with the new priorities set by all the institutions. Who can they turn to?
Certainly not the Commission, as it clearly showed in Seattle, nor the Council, which at second reading trimmed EUR 450 million off compulsory expenditure. Yet, unfortunately, nor can they rely on Parliament which, through its rapporteur, intends to challenge the existence of compulsory expenditure.
The budget is a fundamental act which makes political choices.
We reject these choices and so will vote against the 2000 budget.
I think it would be sensible if next year the financial needs of the crisis in Kosovo are addressed by demonstrating flexibility now, and we should not yet start to amend the financial perspective in Category 4.
The maximum figure for Category 4 does not have to be amended permanently other than by using a flexibility clause to the full.
On the other hand, the position of Parliament that was adopted here today will mean enormous challenges for Portugal, as the final decisions on the financing of external actions are being left until next spring.
Theato report (A5-0090/1999)
- (SV) In connection with the account of the Court of Auditors' annual report, it emerged that the Court of Auditors' current President, Jan O. Karlsson, had taken steps against the person who had supplied the mass media with information about the content of the annual report.
We Swedes have a lot to learn within the European partnership.
The EU in turn has something to learn from the way we handle some things in Sweden.
Openness and public access to official records are one such area.
It is therefore unfortunate that, instead of upholding our traditions, Jan O. Karlsson should have chosen to adapt to what unfortunately applies in Brussels.
There may be different views as to how far it was right or wrong of an official in the EU' s Court of Auditors to reveal in advance the contents of the annual report.
What is really important, however, is that we should together fight for the right to do this.
We are concerned here with the freedom to supply information which the Government so often says it wants to uphold in the EU context.
It is, to say the least, worrying that the Swedish head of the EU' s Court of Auditors should choose to adapt to the worst aspects of the EU administration' s culture, namely secrecy and the desire for revenge upon employees who choose to speak out.
In the Swedish constitution and in Swedish debate, the freedom to supply information is acknowledged as an indispensable part of any effective supervision of the democratic and public system.
We believe that this is important for democracy.
We think there is a need for more EU employees who dare to reveal cheating and irregularities.
For each time an EU official is reprimanded because of his openness, we lose ground in our work for an open EU.
Against the background of the above, we have not been able to support the re-election of those Members who are at present Members of the Court of Auditors and who obviously consider that it is perfectly correct to act in this way.
We have therefore chosen to abstain from voting when it comes to appointing Giorgio Clemente, Jørgen Mohr, Aunus Salmi and Jan O. Karlsson.
Murphy recommendation for second reading (A5-0099/1999)
Mr President, I voted for the Murphy report.
It is right and proper that the European Parliament is trying to avoid delays in the payment of commercial transactions.
As the representative of the Pensioners' Party, I nevertheless hope that one day, Parliament will also address public administrations which must pay pensions to eligible people in the fifteen Member States.
In Italy, for example, 10, 15 or even 20 years go by before an elderly person, even a 90 year-old, receives their due.
It would not be amiss if public administrations in the fifteen Member States were subject to the same attention as private administrations.
. (ES) Strengthening small and medium-sized enterprises and favouring measures which will contribute to improving their competitiveness has been one of the objectives of this Parliament, because of the fundamental role they play in the creation of jobs and because any actions aimed at small and medium-sized economic operators promote European economic growth in general and provide a safe path towards achieving economic and social cohesion in the Community.
The proposal for a directive combating late payments in commercial transactions is, in this sense, an effective instrument in terms of ending the excessive and often abusive time limits for payment which are used in certain fundamental sectors and which are the main cause of bankruptcy and financial and investment difficulties which SMEs have to face.
This is why I have a very positive view of the Murphy report and have voted in favour of it, since it reintroduces aspects which the Council had eliminated in drawing up the common position, but which are of unquestionable benefit to SMEs, in particular the obligation to legislate for the establishment of standardised payment terms in commercial transactions and for this obligation to also be incumbent upon public entities.
Let us hope that the Council listens to Parliament and that we can at last lay down harmonised contract rules at a European level, which will put an end to late payment and the dominant position of some creditors with regard to payment terms, and thereby improve the competitiveness of SMEs.
- Mr President, I strongly support this excellent report by my Labour colleague, Simon Murphy.
It offers yet further proof of Labour's commitment to create an environment across Europe where entrepreneurs and businesses can flourish.
Late payment regularly throttles many viable businesses, especially small businesses.
Many, through no fault of their own, are tragically forced into receivership as a result.
Entrepreneurs are needlessly ruined, jobs are lost, needlessly lost, economic vibrancy is needlessly deadened.
This measure, however, will help allow small businesses to fight back.
Creditors will be entitled to charge a statutory interest rate on their debts, encouraging debtors to pay early.
Furthermore, if debts are not repaid, creditors will also be able to recoup their costs for collecting bad debts.
By introducing greater certainty in business transactions Europe-wide, small businesses will feel more confident to trade not just across Britain but also right across the European Single Market.
Membership of the Single Market, the largest trading bloc in the world, is crucial for jobs in the north-west.
Nearly 40% of small and medium sized enterprises in the region have trading links with other EU Member States.
As a part of the EU Single Market, they have access to over 370m potential customers - over 6 times more than in Britain alone.
In a few years time, following the enlargement of the European Union, they will have access to a potential 500m customers - as big as the American and Japanese markets put together.
The Labour Government is determined to make the Single Market work for British business.
By giving UK businesses the confidence to reach into these markets, this measure will help in this task and increase trade, growth and employment across both the north-west and all of Britain.
Papayannakis report (A5-0101/1999)
Mr President, I am very pleased that this measure on the labelling and identification of beef has been approved, but I hope that the citizens, those poor souls, are labelled too, particularly the pensioners.
I would like it to be known when they were born and what they are like, given that - and this is something I often notice - they are considered as numbers.
Yes, bureaucracy views elderly citizens who want their pensions as numbers - I would remind you that I am the representative of the Pensioners' Party and I have seen this many times - which is why I hope that the photographs of these citizens will be put onto documents and that our citizens will be labelled and considered to be at least equal to livestock.
- (FR) The beef labelling proposal is now before us as the labelling of GMOs was previously.
Labelling has become the wonder tool.
Through it, food safety will reign, the consumer will be protected and our Green colleagues will be satisfied at having ensured the survival of humanity, at least in terms of food ...
In reality, labelling is one of those tricks so well loved by the leaders of Europe for calming people' s anxieties without actually solving any problems.
The labelling of GMOs should already be ringing alarm bells. We have no idea what to put on the labels.
For example, do we put 'product of biotechnologies' ?
If we put both 'bio' and 'techno' on a product' s label, consumers will fall over themselves to buy it.
This beef labelling proposal is therefore revealing the length of the Commission' s nose like a Community Pinocchio.
This is the Brussels institution which, in 1997, decided on labelling for beef. Yet it is only now telling us that it is not technically capable of identifying the origin of bovine animals.
If the origin of bovine animals cannot be identified, how can we be sure that British beef presents no risk?
We have to go one way or the other.
If we know the provenance of bovine animals, then the lifting of the ban on British beef can be guaranteed and these animals can also be labelled.
Yet, if we cannot label these animals because we do not know the origin of the meat, how can we then lift the ban? In other words, in the same week, France cannot be forced to lift its ban because the meat is traceable to a certain extent, while the request for labelling has been turned down on account of the technical impossibility of tracing the animals.
Who can actually believe that in the three years since 1997 we have not managed to label meat by indicating the origin of the animal? Despite the fact that we can already indicate the location of the slaughterhouse, we cannot give the provenance of the slaughtered animal.
The European Commission really does not care about consumers or the people.
Brussels wants one thing only which is to ensure the free movement of products, capital, people and now contaminated British beef, at any price and without any obstacles.
It is clear that labelling would result in the de facto boycott of British beef by consumers who do not want to compromise what remains of their brains after being fried by television news.
In essence, the slogan of the European Commission and of the whole concept of European construction is 'profit before life' and has been so since 'the Europe of our brainless forefathers' .
This is so obvious that the only label which might ensure safety would be one which read 'official from Brussels' .
- (DE) The regulation to be amended at the Commission' s proposal was described two years ago in the wake of the BSE crisis as a central issue and an important decision within the context of European consumer protection.
The stated purpose of the regulation is to protect animal and human health and to increase or restore consumer confidence in the quality of beef and meat products.
What was it that persuaded the Council to adopt this regulation when it did? Was it perhaps a way of saying to the public, look here, we are doing all we can to end the BSE crisis, while never really having any serious intention, either then or now, of implementing the regulation.
Unfortunately, it was just that. The public has been cheated and, on top of everything, a disservice has been done to European consumer protection.
To be sure, some speakers voiced their concern during the first and second readings that the text of the law was perhaps too strict and that there would be problems with its transposition.
So there were signs.
If that was the problem, we had the chance to rectify it but, unfortunately, we did not make use of that chance.
The errors on the part of individual Member States, and I would be most interested to know which Member States, is only one side of the coin; the irresponsible conduct on the part of the Commission is the other.
Allow me in this context to remind the Commission of a few agreed dates: the Commission should be managing an electronic data base on 31 December 1999, i.e. in 16 days' time.
Is this data base up and running?
The same question arises in relation to the Member States' reports on the implementation of the beef labelling system; these reports were supposed to have been sent to the Commission by 1 May 1999.
Are they available?
Obviously the delay with all the stages of transposition has not come about overnight.
The Commission must have been able to see at the beginning of the year that the deadlines set could not be kept.
Why then was Parliament not informed of these developments earlier, as it could have been in July.
Today we are discussing postponing the entry into force of the regulation without really knowing how transposition is progressing in the individual Member States, without knowing how long implementation will still take and, more importantly, what action has yet to be taken.
The original intention of the regulation, which was to generate confidence in European consumer protection, would be reversed by this sort of measure.
The Commission' s present proposal is, in my eyes, confusing and lacking in background information and I am therefore unable to support it.
- Mr President, I am all in favour of the labelling of beef.
Reforms in beef production introduced in Britain following the beef crisis now make British beef among the highest quality and safest in the world.
In time, I am confident that consumers not just in Britain but throughout the EU will recognise this fact and actively search out British beef.
Full labelling will therefore work to British beef farmers' advantage.
If such a confidence-building measure also speeds the end of the illegal French ban on British beef, then so much the better.
EU citizens will recognise good beef when they see it.
They will also recognise law-breaking and hypocrisy when they see it.
The French beef ban, as everyone but the French Government agrees, is illegal and totally unjustified.
The French beef ban is also hypocritical and unworthy of a French Government that claims to be at the heart of Europe.
Hence Labour MEPs dignified walkout during the official opening of the new Parliament building on Tuesday.
MEPs should not make EU laws in a country that breaks EU laws.
In contrast, I can only praise the restraint and respect for the law shown by farmers in the north-west and Britain as a whole throughout this crisis.
I urge them to continue to show such responsibility.
I also urge the Commission to institute fast-track proceedings against the French Government as soon as possible.
Furthermore, I urge the Commission to investigate the possibility of compensation for hard-pressed British beef farmers, many of them driven almost to the wall by the beef ban.
In this connection, I welcome new proposals by my Socialist Group colleagues for a European Small Claims Court to help people facing ruin due to EU disputes in future.
We should never forget, however, where ultimate responsibility for this crisis lies.
It was the Tories who, through lax regulation, caused the crisis.
It was the Tories, who, through their ludicrous beef war, escalated the crisis.
And it is the Tories now, who, through irresponsible calls for illegal retaliatory boycotts, are trying to extend the crisis for their own party political gain.
While the Tories continue to play politics, however, Labour continues to work, with the support of the NFU, to get the ban lifted.
Helsinki European Council
Mr President, the Members of the European Free Alliance have also approved the text concerning the Helsinki Summit.
Nevertheless, by way of an explanation of vote, I would like to make a few observations.
Parliament has taken note of the fact that Turkey has been included as a candidate country.
This turn of phrase clearly hints at the wave of criticism this has met within this Parliament.
On behalf of the European Free Alliance, I would like to explicitly subscribe to this criticism.
We thought it was far too soon, given that the Kurdish issue is nowhere near a stage where it could be resolved in the light of the right to self-determination of the Kurds and human rights are still being violated with no end in sight.
The fact that the winner of the Sakharov prize, Leyla Zana, is still in prison herself, clearly indicates that the right to freedom of speech in Turkey and human rights are still being neglected.
This is why it was not the right time.
We do wonder if there is ever going to be a right time.
My second observation concerns our disappointment regarding institutional reform.
As far as we are concerned, regions which have sovereign power, based on their own constitution, should also be able to execute it within Europe. Europe is not just a sum of Member States.
Democracy within Europe must gain more depth.
Mr President, in our opinion the most striking feature of the Helsinki European Council was the absence of any long-term political vision among the Heads of State and Government. They decided to enlarge the Union to a previously unimagined extent, possibly adding thirteen new members, without giving any consideration to the conceptual tools which would make it possible to envisage the institutional structures capable of coping with this enlargement.
The contradiction has now reached its limit with the inclusion of Turkey on the list of official candidates. The Turkish Prime Minister declared the day after the Summit that membership of the European Union was, and I quote, a "birthright" for Turkey.
This gives us an idea of the restraint which he is ready to show in pushing open the door to the European Union. Yet it is clear to all freethinking observers that the arrival of Turkey will profoundly alter the nature of the Union.
Can you, for example, imagine the free movement of persons between Turkey and the countries of western Europe, virtually without any controls as is now happening within the EU? The Heads of State and Government who are supposed to be responsible must be very far removed from reality to imagine for one instant that this could happen.
Yet they continue to advocate an almost unique solution with the extension of qualified majority voting, as reiterated the day before yesterday by the French President, Jacques Chirac, before this House.
The federalists are simply reeling off the same old recipes by rote, without thinking about what they are saying.
We have the impression of an institutional system that is going downhill and which has no concept of its future, unless the Council has one without daring to tell us. It seems to be a prisoner of the consequences of an enlargement decision which it cannot control.
The Turkish Prime Minister has boasted of having been supported by Washington in his attempt to accede to the European Union, and it is true that this intervention was effective.
He has even added that less time will be needed than was thought for Turkey to become a full member of the Union.
At this rate, it will also take less time than we thought for the Union to self-destruct.
(Some applause)
- (DA) The Danish Social Democrats have today voted for the resolution concerning the results of the European Council' s meeting of 10-11 December in Helsinki.
The most important result of the Summit was that the EU has confirmed the ambitious plans for the enlargement of the EU, meaning, among other things, that an Intergovernmental Conference is now to be called to facilitate the accession of new Member States.
Throughout the preparations for the Summit, as well as with a view to the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference, we have attached importance to a realistic agenda being established which will make it possible to achieve a result before the end of the year 2000.
We are therefore very satisfied with the conclusions which were reached in Helsinki in this area.
It is important that, in the course of the Intergovernmental Conference, a lot of new matters should not be brought up which make it impossible to comply with the very tight timetable.
The best example of the difficulties that can be caused by introducing new subjects is probably the issue of the so-called tax package.
It is annoying that a result in this area should not already have been achieved in Helsinki, but it will hopefully be possible to solve the matter no later than at the forthcoming Summit in Lisbon in the summer.
In the period leading up to the Summit, we warned against the EU turning itself into a fully-fledged defence alliance on a number of occasions.
We therefore noted with satisfaction that the European Council resolved that no European army should be established but that the focus should be upon conflict prevention and civil crisis management.
. (PT) We wish to highlight four decisions taken at the Helsinki European Council meeting of 10 and 11 December, regardless of latter considerations, which merit the following comments:
We are concerned to note the definition of the outlines of the next Intergovernmental Conference, which may clear the way for the reality of "boards of management" and for the deepening of the EU' s federalist tendency.
Whilst we regret the fact that the Council decided to accept Turkey as a candidate for accession, we hope that at least no new steps are taken until its government takes the necessary measures in the area of human rights, international law on the fixing of borders, the application of the UN resolutions on Cyprus and a political solution to the Kurdish question.
We criticise the decision to develop the European Union' s resources for military crisis management, in the framework of a strengthened European common policy on security and defence, conceived as the development and strengthening of NATO' s European pillar, as we also reject the militarist vision of resorting to warfare in order to resolve international conflicts.
What was necessary was to have created initiatives for disarmament and the banning of nuclear testing.
Finally, we feel that it is crucial to pay greater attention to the quality of employment, to reducing working hours and to giving dignity to workers and that we do not continue to insist on flexibility at work and on moderation in wages.
We voted against the motion for a common resolution on the Helsinki European Council because it rejected amendments - particularly those proposed by the UEN Group - which would have improved, it in the chapters "Enlargement" , "Intergovernmental Conference" and "External Relations" .
We agree specifically however with paragraph nos 19 to 27 (competitive economy and employment) and nos 29 to 34 (environment, public health and combating organised crime and drugs).
For our part, we take pleasure in the fact that the European Council has maintained and seems to want to maintain the intergovernmental method at the centre of the Union' s international system; and we reject the blindness that has led many to claim all the glory for the European Parliament, scorning the role of national governments and cutting them out of the European process, which is an unacceptable mistake.
We also disagree with the urgency where Turkey is concerned.
In terms of external policy as well, we particularly regret the lack of any mention of the very grave situation in Angola as well as the fact that no reservations have been expressed about the agreement reached with Mexico, which could give a worldwide advantage to NAFTA countries, exacerbate the disequilibrium in reciprocal access to the markets and seriously damage the interests of European industries.
We also regret the fact that nothing has been said about Russia to correct the tone of some obvious exaggerations in the resolution on Chechnya.
That concludes the explanations of vote.
Book prices in Germany and Austria
The next item is the Oral Question (B5-0038/99) by Mr Rothley and others on fixed book prices in Austria and Germany.
I would like to thank Mr Rothley for his question and intervention, and I would like to mention that I have already discussed this subject with him at some length.
First of all, I would like to point out that the Commission started to address the cross-border system of fixed book prices in force in Germany and Austria a long time before the protest made by the Austrian company Libro in 1996.
In fact, the proceedings in question began in 1993, with the Commission being notified of the cross-border agreements between German and Austrian publishers.
This was followed in 1994, 1995 and 1996 respectively, by the protests of two sellers of German books and the Austrian federal workers' association, an organisation which also has the task of defending consumer interests.
The Commission has not yet completed its consideration of the cases in question and therefore cannot bring forward the decision that will be taken on the proceedings currently underway.
It is the Commission' s duty not to discuss, apart from with those involved, an individual case on competition law where proceedings are open, but it can talk about the general points raised in an oral question, which is something I am very happy to do in your presence in this House.
National systems of fixed book prices may be based on national regulations or an agreement between companies, and in the case in point, between publishers and booksellers.
It is impossible to make an exact comparison of such regulations and an agreement between companies: indeed, different provisions of the Treaty are applied.
Systems based on regulations must be considered on the basis of Article 28 of the Treaty, whereas agreements between companies must comply with Article 81 of the Treaty.
In both cases, the case-law of the Court of Justice must obviously be respected.
The Commission believes that national systems of fixed book prices, based on agreements between companies, are compatible with Community competition rules if they do not significantly affect trade between Member States.
In these cases where trade is affected, Article 81 is not applied.
As for systems based on regulations, each Member State is free to adopt regulations as long as they are compatible with the principle, sanctioned by the Treaty, of the free movement of goods.
This choice is left to the national authorities.
More particularly, as far as French legislation is concerned - which Mr Rothley has mentioned - and as it was drafted at the time, in the judgement of 10 January 1995 on the Leclerc case, no. 229/83 "Au blé vert" , the Court of Justice decreed that, in the sphere of national legislation establishing a fixed book price system, rules which establish that the publisher' s fixed price must be observed, as regards the sale of books published in the Member State itself, and which are reimported prior to export to another Member State, constitute measures with an effect equivalent to import restrictions, which are prohibited under Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the Treaty, unless there are well-grounded reasons to believe that the aforementioned books have been exported with the sole aim of reimporting them with the intention of evading the aforementioned law.
Finally, I would like to point out that such legislation, in Germany and Austria, would not contribute to the harmonisation of European law.
Indeed, there are various Member States that have never had a system of fixed book prices and there are other Member States that had such a system and put an end to it, for example Belgium, Ireland and the United Kingdom which, as we know, have the same language as another Member State.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to confine myself to three points.
There is much which needs to be said, but my colleagues have already contributed a great deal to the debate on fixed book prices.
As far as I am concerned, the first point is that we need to stress the importance of the specialist book trade, we need to build on quality, not quantity, we are in immediate need of a specialist trade, a supply of specialist literature, as far as the sciences and technical books are concerned, and of personal service and advice.
I also believe that it is in the interests of the promotion of SMEs, the preservation of which is an important factor in the European Union, and which is practised in the case of the specialist book trade in a very positive and demonstrative manner.
Secondly, I think it is very important to refer to the cross-border language area.
We are always talking about the diversity of European culture and about the diversity of languages, which are growing together but which still need to retain their own identity.
It is therefore imperative to be able to sell these books easily across borders.
The most important point for me is the cultural aspect of books and society' s obligation towards literature and art; it is precisely now, in an era of new media, that books need to be specially promoted and supported.
Art and culture are, as we know, a very important economic factor and so therefore are books.
When we look at printers, publishers, translators, the trade and much more besides, then we know how important the book trade is, how important art is, including for employment.
That should not mean, however, that we regard art and culture as purely economic factors.
Art and culture need social support.
They are a necessity, we have a responsibility towards them and we cannot deal with them in that respect under the normal rules of competition.
I should therefore like to urge you, Commissioner, to put the interests of large undertakings after culture, cultural diversity and the specialist trade. Make your decision in the case of books in accordance with the principles of French law and allow the German and Austrian book trade sufficient time to adapt fixed book prices to these principles.
I believe that this will fulfil a very important cultural brief, whereby the economy is perhaps only left standing temporarily.
I think that this, too, is a gain.
Mr President, Commissioner, I very much appreciate the fact that you have joined us here in Parliament to discuss the matter with us.
In my opinion, and I think I can speak on behalf of everyone here present, the availability of information is essential to our democracy and, as has been stated before, to maintain our level of cultural development.
I think that I would especially like to highlight this cultural aspect i.e. the cultural significance of books.
This is exactly the reason why books should have an exemption position in cultural policy.
In most countries, books are not subsidised, unlike other forms of culture, but this is not necessary.
In my opinion, the government should mainly play a stimulating role.
This is why in a large number of countries, including the Netherlands, which I represent, a decision has been made in favour of fixed book prices.
In this way, we can avoid a scenario where mutual competition is so unfair that the wide and varied supply would diminish and that the easy access to information would be lost.
You too have just noted yourself that Member States need to indicate themselves what measures they will take, whether they will conclude agreements or adopt legislation, but, Commissioner, language transcends boundaries.
This is why I would also like to ask you three questions concerning the cross-border fixed book price.
For various countries in Europe, this is an urgent matter.
Some things have just come to light regarding Germany and Austria, but also in the Netherlands, activities in this sphere are closely monitored.
This is important for the Dutch linguistic region but also, of course, for other linguistic regions.
The first question concerns the large-scale mobility of people and new developments via e-commerce, which lead to a gradual fading of the borders.
Do you not share my view that the lack of cross-border price fixing or, for example, its abolition, especially for small businesses - and with this I am back on the subject of employment - entails the risk that national regulations will be cancelled out by extensive importing? There is a risk that small bookshops will disappear, especially in the countryside and in smaller towns, and that with it, accessibility will decrease.
My second question to you concerns the key significance of cultural integration, as is also included in the preamble to the oral questions.
I actually feel that this aspect is given too little consideration.
Cultural integration which transcends national borders is restricted if the fixed book price were to be scrapped and it is of particular importance to promote it in countries which share the same language.
I think that fixed book prices are exactly the right instrument in this case.
I fully agree with the ladies and gentlemen.
The rules which are being drafted now should not be a hotchpotch.
Each country is coming up with something but it would be preferable to find better solutions for this.
I would like to urge you too to take swift action.
This is a very long-winded affair.
In my own profession, I have experienced exactly that for years and years.
I think the time is right to take some decisions.
Thirdly, I would like to express my concern regarding these detours because do you not think that because of these detours, it is easy to undermine the fixed book price from other Member States in the same linguistic region and that it is not a very effective means of safeguarding the special value of the book as a cultural object and the special significance of the book market for culture?
These are three points which I would like to highlight.
I believe that the consumer is not at all interested in lower prices.
The consumer wants quality which should be sound and widely available.
Mr President, in 1998 the European Commission started a procedure intended to conclude a cross-border book price agreement between Germany and Austria.
Through this procedure, which was based on respect for European competition rules, the Commission was actually aiming to challenge the fixed book price system. Among other benefits, this system allows literary production to be supported and the survival of small publishing houses and bookshops to be assured.
The European Parliament reacted strongly by adopting virtually unanimously, on 20 November 1998, a resolution which defended fixed book prices and which called on the Commission to bring its Community policy on book price agreements into line with cultural requirements.
Under pressure from the French and German Governments, the Council used Parliament' s position to adopt a resolution on 8 February 1999 demanding, in particular, the continuation of the existing fixed book price systems.
The steadfastness shown by the Council and Parliament led the Commission to acknowledge that competition rules could not be systematically applied in the book sector.
It therefore confirmed that it had no intention of challenging the contractual agreements concluded in certain Member States or national laws such as the Lange Act in France.
Nevertheless, some months later, and after the installation of the new Commission, the Directorate-General for Competition is once again pushing the Commission to act against cross-border agreements and fixed book prices.
Faced with this new offensive by the Commission, which is bent on deregulation, it was important to react very quickly.
I am therefore delighted about this debate and the new position being taken by the European Parliament on this issue.
In its motion for a resolution, my group stresses that books are primarily cultural assets and must not therefore be subject to the competition rules in the same way as all other goods.
Their unique nature must be fully recognised in the context of the EU' s cultural policy which we are trying to develop.
This is why we hope that Parliament will confirm its position of November 1998 in order to defend cross-border agreements and fixed book prices.
Why will the Commission not take up our proposal to extend the fixed book price system to all Member States? In order to take account of technological developments, the directive on e-commerce should also include the requirements indicated by the various national laws on fixed book prices to prevent this system from being circumvented.
To conclude, I hope that the Council will show the same steadfastness as this House in protecting and promoting the fixed book price system. This system, as noted by our motion for a resolution, is better than any other at improving the production and distribution of literary works without eliminating competition.
Mr President, Commissioner, the Dutch poet Lucebert wrote "Everything of value is defenceless."
These words are of great value in the debate on fixed book prices.
In fixed book pricing, there is certainly no 'sacred cow' for book lovers.
With words to the same effect, former Commissioner Van Miert once lashed out against those advocating the maintenance of fixed book pricing.
He very conveniently overlooked the fact that those against fixed book pricing very probably selected the market mechanism as if it were their "golden calf" .
The instrument of fixed book pricing and the corresponding restriction in exploiting the opportunities afforded by parallel importing reduce competition.
Cross-subsidisation will occur between good and bad expenditure.
The abolition of fixed book pricing results in increased competition and lower prices.
This would be in the interests of the consumer.
This line of reasoning seems to be sound, but it falls short on two important counts.
In the first place, the government is responsible for running society as a whole.
In carrying out this responsibility, it is completely unacceptable to society as a whole if it honours certain specific interests unilaterally and neglects others.
In this discussion, the government cannot just have the consumer' s partial interests at heart.
Secondly, the reasoning is based on the implied assumption that price is the only thing that matters to the consumer.
This is a rather one-sided view.
I have never met a consumer on the street with such blinkered views.
He only exists in theory.
Indeed, the real consumer also takes into account quality, diversity, accessibility and adequate distribution of the total supply of books.
That fixed book pricing only benefits publishers and bookshops is thus a fable and anyone who has read a story in a children' s book will know that fables are not entirely true.
People in favour of the abolition of fixed book pricing should also be aware of the consequences.
It is highly likely that diversity in the supply of bookshops will suffer.
Mass culture will be promoted.
This is, in the long run, fatal for the cultural education of citizens.
In my country, the Netherlands, there is also the consideration that fixed book pricing protects our relatively small linguistic region.
You could, in defence, bring up the argument that it is not up to the government to tutor or stimulate its citizens into cultural education and it therefore has no responsibility in terms of the richness in the variety of books supplied.
The government should abstain from exercising any influence and the market mechanism will balance out supply and demand.
This sounds neutral but it is not.
Implicitly, this point of view sees the effect of market forces as being the only right outcome.
In our society, the introduction of market forces seems to be the highest goal in virtually all areas of policy.
This viewpoint is a direct result of reversing ends and means.
The outcome of a liberal, strictly market-conforming policy is, by definition, not free from value judgement.
With such a policy, the government is making just as much of a value statement of what it believes is right or wrong.
It is especially important in the cultural sector that factors other than financial ones are part of the equation because things of great value also happen to be very vulnerable.
If the free market forces take over, we will soon have to switch Lucebert' s words around to "Everything is once more without value" .
We need to avoid this situation at all costs.
Mr President, in my own country, the United Kingdom, we had a long political debate over the value of resale price maintenance applied to books.
That debate ended with the abolition of the book price-fixing agreement.
There is no evidence from the United Kingdom of less choice, higher prices or of any reduction in specialist bookshops.
Indeed, the number of books sold and the number of publishing houses producing them appears to be increasing.
This is surely a good thing.
At least it seems so to me since I think that books exist to be read, or certainly that was the conclusion I reached when I studied English literature at university.
Certainly, under the principles of subsidiarity, if a Member State wishes to impose resale price maintenance on books, so be it.
Moreover, if two or more Member States wish to create an internal area of joint resale price maintenance in respect of books, good luck to them.
But this has to be compatible with the single market.
Any such statutory system must have no effect as regards books sold outside the limits of the Member States' jurisdiction.
Nor should it affect books brought in or brought back into it, an increasingly widespread and popular means of book-selling developing in conjunction with e-commerce, which is entirely in accordance with the principles of the single market, and provides enormous opportunities for small niche businesses.
Any suggestion that this should take place is illiberal.
It is contrary to the principles of the single market and, in my view, is de facto a form of censorship, and artificially rationing the supply of books in favour of the better-off.
Furthermore, I believe that it prejudices a proper and legitimate aspect of intra-European trade, threatening to reduce the movement of literature across Europe to the level of pornography sent through the post, so I am reliably informed, in unmarked brown manilla envelopes, and in the free world reducing the legitimate trade in books to the level of smuggling in and out of eastern Europe of so-called subversive literature.
I, for one at least, am not in favour of that because I believe it is old-fashioned, illiberal, reactionary and, in its longer-term effect, philistine.
Commissioner, we have often discussed this matter in the past in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
Listening to the debate here today, I can see that what was agreed between the Austrian and Germany book trade and the Commission has still found no place in this debate.
I can see, including from the speeches this week, that there is obviously a rapprochement here, on the basis of the recognition of the national book price fixing system and a regulation based on French law, which demonstrates, Commissioner Monti, that you are prepared to weigh the cultural aspect, which has formed part of the EC Treaty since Maastricht, against Article 85 of the EC Treaty, which requires you, as Commissioner for competition, to ensure that there are equal conditions of competition, thereby helping to ensure that consumers do not lose out in this respect.
The question is, how can it be done? I am convinced that we are on the right track here.
We do not need to accuse the Commissioner of philistinism, because he is just doing his job as keeper of the treaties.
I think that if we can find an economically reasonable solution which the publishing houses agree with, if we can find a solution which recognises cultural language areas, if we can find a solution which does not incorporate the maximum limitation on competition within the level playing field required under Article 85, then we are on the right track towards a reasonable regulation.
In principle, therefore, I support the motion for a resolution as tabled here by Mr Rothley.
However, reference to the Commission' s obligation to comply with competition regulations is missing.
This should be added, otherwise we shall lose credibility and we shall put Mr Monti in an awkward position which he certainly does not deserve, because I have confidence in your informed judgement.
Mr President, I would like to thank all those who took part in this debate, which I found worthwhile both from a political and a cultural point of view.
I would like to assure the participants in the debate that the Commission, and myself personally, attach a lot of importance, as you do, to culture and books, and we recognise the cultural importance of books and are ready to take into account these specific features.
Mr Karas mentioned that I have already stated that I wish competition policy to be an element of the social market economy: I confirm this and ask you all not to consider competition as an abstract concept and the citizens' enemy.
Competition is the main ally of individual citizens.
Competition' s main aim is to safeguard consumer interests from the point of view both of prices and quality, as well as to safeguard small and medium-sized businesses against the excesses of large businesses, in many cases.
For this reason, just as I am prepared to give full recognition to the importance of culture, I am asking you not to become intellectual victims of an approach whereby competition is not a major ally of citizens.
The task of competition is to combat cartels, the abuse of dominant positions and mergers, and to create more possibilities for economic freedom, and we know that economic freedom is often accompanied by civil freedom too, as shown by the past experience of countries which did not have economic freedom.
I therefore believe that there is room for a harmonious interaction between cultural policy and competition policy, without creating futile and forced counter-stances.
The evidence provided by Lord Inglewood, which can be found in other countries as well, shows that the abolition of a fixed price system does not necessarily bring about disruptive consequences in terms of prices and quality of books.
Yet I want it to be very clear that the Commission is not working for the abolition of fixed price systems for books as such.
Frankly, Mrs Juncker, I wonder whether you and I were in the same room when I spoke because I am very surprised that you say that the Commission wants to eliminate the price maintenance system.
May I repeat literally what I said in Italian:
"The Commission believes that national systems of fixed book prices, based on agreements between companies, are compatible with Community competition rules if they do not significantly affect trade between Member States."
I also said: "As for systems based on regulations" - that is, the other possibility, not agreements but regulations - "each Member State is free to adopt regulations as long as they are compatible with the principle, sanctioned by the Treaty, of the free movement of goods" .
Therefore, please, let us not depict the Commission as an institution which sets out to do things that in reality it has no intention of doing.
I have repeatedly said that we will not oppose, nor can we oppose, fixed book price systems at national level.
We must only prevent telling distortions arising from the fact that this is a cross-border issue.
I have already said, as regards the specific German/Austrian case, where proceedings are on-going, that unfortunately I cannot discuss it in detail here.
I can, however, assure you that I made an enormous effort, in my first three months in office, to meet the parties concerned and pinpoint prospects for a positive outcome.
In this respect, I found Mr Langen' s intervention constructive, as he seems to recognise that such a prospect exists.
(EN) Finally, Mrs Echerer reminded us all in this room that we have different backgrounds.
She is right.
Unfortunately, my background is not that of an actor.
I would not dare to define myself as a man of culture, far from it, but I spent my life until five years ago as a university professor and my life has been spent between books as an instrument for work and they are something I deeply respect and love.
I believe I am as sensitive as anybody here to the importance of books, of culture.
It is simply my job to try to preserve all the positive values that are embedded in them, avoiding at the same time some excesses that may be to the detriment of the reader.
Thank you very much for your attention.
That concludes the debate.
The vote will take place this evening.
(The sitting was suspended at 12.40 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)
Topical and urgent subjects of major importance
The next item is the debate on topical and urgent subjects of major importance.
Indonesia
The next item is the joint debate on the following motions for resolutions:
B5-0339/1999 by Mr Titley, on behalf of the PSE Group, on the situation in Indonesia and East Timor;
B5-0350/1999 by Mrs Lynne, on behalf of the ELDR Group, on Indonesia;
B5-0366/1999 by Mr Nassauer and others, on Indonesia and East Timor;
B5-0377/1999 by Mrs Hautala and others, on behalf of the Greens/ALE Group, on the situation in Indonesia and East Timor;
B5-0382/1999 by Mr Miranda and others, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, on Indonesia.
I would like to begin on a positive note.
I think we should recognise that there is now a new democratically-elected government in Indonesia and that, for the first time in 40 years, there is now a civilian defence minister.
Therefore, we should, as the international community, be seeking to support that democratic government in Indonesia.
However, in the same week as we gave Mr Gusmão the Sakharov Prize, we must be careful not to drop our guard too far.
We must consider that although there is a civilian defence minister in Indonesia, the defence ministry is still heavily militarised.
Clearly we would want to see greater democratisation of the defence ministry in Indonesia.
We must also recognise that there is still considerable abuse by the armed forces against those who wish to express a desire for autonomy in parts of Indonesia.
Clearly while that persecution is going on by the Indonesian military we would not also be wanting to support that or give any message of support.
We also know that in West Timor, the Indonesian military have not disarmed or disbanded the militias yet.
They are still terrorising something like 200 000 East Timorese refugees who are trapped in West Timor.
They are obstructing UN efforts in order to repatriate these people to East Timor.
We want to see those militias disarmed and disbanded as soon as possible.
We also know that the Indonesian military are opposed to cooperating with the UN International Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate crimes against humanity in East Timor.
We want to see the Indonesian military cooperate fully with UN investigations.
For that reason the EU should be extending its four-month old arms embargo on arms sales to Indonesia because if we were to lift that arms embargo the signal we would give to the military is very clearly that they are acceptable and have been rehabilitated, whereas, as I have just outlined, that is far from being the case.
I recognise there is a strong argument for saying that if we do not provide arms to Indonesia they will go elsewhere to buy them, to China or to Russia, for example.
Nonetheless, it is important for us to make a clear statement that we want to see reform of the Indonesia military.
We want to see greater civilian and democratic control and we want to see greater respect for human rights in Indonesia.
That has not yet happened and now is not the time to lift the arms embargo.
I put this resolution forward on behalf of the ELDR Group because I believe the EU arms embargo should not be lifted on 17 January.
What we should have instead is an extension of that arms embargo.
It would be definitely unacceptable to lift it.
The army have failed miserably to disarm and disband the militia.
They have been terrorising between a hundred and two hundred thousand refugees in West Timor.
They are not allowing aid workers into the camps.
In one camp 160 have died. 90% of those were children under five.
As has already been said, they are not cooperating with the UN International Commission for Crimes Against Humanity and they are also committing crimes and atrocities in Aceh and West Papua.
One case I heard of recently was that the police and the army together beat up a young man.
He was going to look for his mother.
They beat him up and interrogated him and kicked him to the ground.
After that they poured gasoline over him and burnt him alive.
That was in North Aceh.
It is still happening.
The Indonesian Army and the militia and the police are still committing these atrocities.
To raise the embargo would give totally wrong signals.
I heard also recently about a secret defence intelligence report from Australia.
Some of the EU countries did not want to agree to the ban in the first place.
Some EU Member States put financial gain above human rights and I do not believe that that is acceptable.
While the Indonesian army is still engaged in acts of repression, the embargo must stay.
Mr President, the key question is whether or not the arms embargo decided by the Council in September of this year as part of the restrictive measures against Indonesia should be extended beyond January next year.
I think, having weighed up the pros and cons, that the right decision is to maintain the embargo.
This allows us to send out two different signals.
First, we want to bolster the development of democracy in Indonesia.
It has, without doubt, maintained momentum with the democratic change of power in Indonesia and we want to and we must encourage the democratic forces in Indonesia.
We must also recognise that the role of the army continues to be highly problematic, to put it mildly.
There have been atrocities not only in East Timor, which is now to gain independence, but also in Aceh and other parts of Indonesia.
What we have to do is make it clear to the army that it is now being closely watched by the public worldwide, especially in the EU, and that we take the liberty of drawing our conclusions from the behaviour of the military.
At the moment, these conclusions must be that we are not prepared to supply this military with any more weapons, irrespective of whether or not the fear that they will now obtain these weapons from China is justified.
We, in all events, should not render ourselves guilty of this arms supply.
I therefore advocate, after careful consideration, that we vote to maintain this embargo, because it is a signal to the army in Indonesia and we hope that it is also a signal to the democratic forces in Indonesia which, we may assume, will be encouraged by our stance.
Like other speakers, I would like to support the call for the arms embargo to remain.
As has been said already, it would be completely unacceptable that the arms embargo be lifted, especially in the light of the fact that the Indonesian military have failed to disarm.
We should send out a signal that what they are doing is unacceptable.
The only justification for lifting the arms embargo would be in the interests of profit.
Many Member States of the European Union have a lot to answer for as regards their own support in the past for the Indonesian authority while it was oppressing the people of East Timor, and also for the fact that these countries and their arms manufacturing firms have made huge profits at the expense of innocent lives and the wellbeing of people and the right of people to live freely without oppression and human rights abuses.
What is happening in East Timor as regards the aid workers is unacceptable.
What the Indonesian authorities are doing there has to be challenged.
As Mrs Lynne has already said, it is not acceptable that the aid workers do not have access to the camps where people are dying.
We stood idly by for too long after the referendum.
We should have done something long before.
The signal was already there.
Despite our past failure to ensure that people were not killed, the onus is now on us to ensure that in future no message of support goes out to the Indonesian authorities as it stands.
They are showing contempt for the wish and will of the international community as regards the right of people to live in peace, the right of people not to be oppressed, the right of people not to be killed with weapons made by western countries.
If China is going to supply weapons to Indonesia that does not justify the European Union lifting its arms embargo.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
What we should also be doing is challenging the fact that China may in fact provide arms.
This is also unacceptable.
China gets away with a huge amount of wrong-doing and it is about time we stood up to them as well.
A clear signal has to go out to the Indonesian authorities that we are no longer going to accept their contempt for the wish of the international community for human rights and peace.
Mr President, like the previous speakers, I would say that the signs of change in Indonesia are obvious.
The search for new paths, marked out by the universal values that characterise constitutional States, that is being led by Mr Wahid' s government deserves the appreciation of the international community.
It is nevertheless too early to assess how well their intentions will succeed. There are fundamental questions that still need to be answered.
How is Indonesia going to address the problems of Aceh, the Moluccas and West Papua?
How will it resolve the problem of the Timorese refugees who are now just currency in the hands of pro-Indonesian militias? What will be their attitude towards the crimes committed by Indonesian soldiers in East Timor, where they were the occupying force, as well as in some Indonesian provinces?
What role will the Indonesian armed forces play?
Will they be able to adapt to a constitutional state or will they continue to be a force within a force?
In terms of the relationship between the European Union and its Member States with the Republic of Indonesia at the moment, the only sensible course of action is to uphold the decisions of the Council of 16 and 17 October, when restrictions were established that included a ban on the sale of weapons.
Mr President, since his official appointment over one and a half months ago, President Wahid has already made fifteen foreign visits.
However, the Indonesian Head of State did not visit a single one of the many acute hotspots at home until earlier this week.
Moreover, the national political elite had to make a detour in Ambon in order to reach the civil governor' s residence by warship.
It seems that President Wahid travels more safely abroad than in his own archipelago - a fateful sign!
Such an impossible situation requires political decisiveness.
After all, we know what the consequences were: an estimated seven hundred casualties on the Moluccas this year alone.
Add to this more than one thousand victims on East Timor, and this is not taking into account the massive unrest and bloodshed in Aceh, Sulawesi and Irian Jaya.
We could reasonably expect the new Indonesian government to take action in three fundamental areas: restoring public order, prosecuting and punishing those who have blood on their hands and entering into a political dialogue with the opposition.
After all, blunt military repression of opposition forces only leads to a nigh hopeless spiral of violence.
The present resolution thus makes an emphatic appeal to the Indonesian authorities.
This is why we gladly subscribe to the resolution.
We have since received reports that one of the key culprits of the East Timorese tragedy, the militia leader Tavares, has suddenly decided to disband the murderous gangs and wishes to walk the path of reconciliation.
The timing of this 'U-turn' seems highly suspect.
Indeed, today sees the start of the International Donor Conference for East Timor in Japan.
Surely the looters of yesterday could not be the subsidisers of tomorrow!
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission welcomes this debate with open arms, as it does the contributions made to this debate so far, for they demonstrate that the European Union is conscious of the responsibility it has for developments in Indonesia and that it wants to continue in its endeavours to bring about a stable and democratic order there.
This is the principle on which our policy is based and nothing will change in this regard.
I quite agree with those who have pointed out that, all problems aside, there have also been some extremely positive developments in Indonesia, which are deserving of support.
The new government has been democratically elected.
It appears to be committed to tackling the urgent problems.
It is endeavouring to resolve the aforementioned regional unrest in Aceh and Irian Jaya and the ethnic tensions in the Moluccas, by means of peaceful dialogue and constitutional reform, and I believe it is crucially important that there is a national commission on human rights that is dealing with human rights issues.
As far as the Commission is concerned, it will only be possible to tackle regional tensions and demands for more autonomy or for independence if a regime, a system, is introduced in Indonesia, that truly guarantees unambiguous political accountability and transparency of statecraft, and lives up to the expectations of the large, democratically-minded majority of citizens.
The Commission is aware that there are still huge challenges to be met in Indonesia.
Firstly, I might mention the fact that the army needs to be reformed, secondly that a stable system of law and order needs to be introduced.
Continuing in that vein, there is a need to put a stop to corruption, to resolve the social problems arising from the economic crisis in Asia and to give renewed impetus to the badly affected Indonesian economy.
Permit me to make a few further remarks on East Timor in this connection, and then I also want to say something about the arms embargo.
I believe that reconstruction in East Timor presents the international community with a very special challenge.
Timor stands out on account of the scale of damage and violence and the singular political situation there.
That is why we want to, and must, help achieve a comprehensive solution to the problems there, under the auspices of the United Nations.
Then there is also the question as to how this state is to be constructed and how human rights are to be secured there.
The Commission has already involved itself here and will continue to involve itself.
Supporting East Timor is a high-priority task as far as we are concerned.
This was illustrated by Mr Nielson' s visit to East and West Timor a few weeks ago.
So far, the Commission has made a total of EUR 33.5 million available for humanitarian aid and reconstruction measures.
The Commission is also to participate in the Donor Conference due to take place in Tokyo tomorrow and which has already been mentioned here.
A concrete programme is to be decided on there.
The Commission intends to see to it that technical assistance is provided in Dili, with a view to ensuring effective implementation of the programmes.
I believe that what we need to do in the very near future in East Timor is to implement the necessary humanitarian measures efficiently.
The repatriation of refugees has begun.
The Indonesian government has assured us that the voluntary repatriation process will soon be concluded.
We intend to keep a very watchful eye on this and, if we detect any hold-ups, then we will bring pressure to bear on the Indonesian government.
In our view, it is up to the United Nations to take the leading role in coordinating all the donors' endeavours.
That is why the Commission believes that all donors should work closely with UNTAET.
The East Timorese should play a part in all aspects of the reconstruction and development process.
The Commission believes that the advisory council, which also contains representatives of various political groupings, has an important role to play.
And so, all in all, although there are positive signs in Indonesia and East Timor, still there is cause for concern and unease.
It is for this very reason that the European Parliament considers this debate to be a necessary one and this is completely in line with the Commission' s intentions and deliberations.
You are aware that the Council has sole responsibility for the arms embargo issue, which has been discussed on a number of occasions here.
Consequently, I only have a certain amount of room for manoeuvre where this is concerned, but I believe that I can say this much: the Commission hopes that the Members of the Council will not only be notified of the arguments that have been presented here but also act on them.
Thank you, Commissioner.
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place this afternoon at 5.30 p.m.
Peace process in Sierra Leone
The next item is the joint debate on the following motions for resolutions:
B5-0333/1999 by Mrs Lucas and others, on behalf of the Greens/ALE Group, on Sierra Leone;
B5-0340/1999 by Mrs Kinnock and Mr Howitt, on behalf of the PSE Group, on the peace process in Sierra Leone;
B5-0352/1999 by Mrs Thors and others, on behalf of the ELDR Group, on the peace process in Sierra Leone;
B5-0367/1999 by Mrs Ferrer and others, on behalf of the PPE/DE Group, on the situation in Sierra Leone.
Mr President, after eight years of infernal civil war, the situation in Sierra Leone is desperate.
Although a peace agreement was signed in Lomé in July, on 22 November, a UN investigation team sadly noted once again a significant deterioration.
The terror against the civilian population in certain parts continues, as do the killings, rape, incarceration and arming of children.
This leads me to raise two specific questions, Mr President, Commissioner, which we need to ask ourselves in all honesty, both as a Commission and as a Union.
Can we allow this arms trade to continue? We know that diamonds - smuggled diamonds, in particular - play a crucial role in this.
Can we continue to turn a blind eye?
Secondly, for the sake of maintaining the peace agreement, a pledge was made to deploy UN peace-keeping troops.
Is the mandate of these troops powerful enough or should we not find out as a matter of urgency what this comes down to in practice other than paying a few mercenaries to be stationed in safe zones?
The situation in Sierra Leone continues to be extremely unstable.
The peace agreement offered improved conditions to only a very small number of the RUF hierarchy.
As the rains in Sierra Leone have come to an end, the campaign of violence and terror against the civilian population has resumed.
To improve things we need to change the quality of government.
It is a country which was highly educated and highly law-abiding.
It is being ruined by international money laundering: diamonds are more easy to exchange internationally than money.
But the poor respect both education and humanitarian values and they respect democracy.
Soon there will be another general election.
We should support that push for democracy.
They have earned their chance to vote.
I call upon the European Parliament and the European Commission to give funding for education, basic justice and democracy immediately.
Mr President, after eight years - as we have been reminded - of a bloody civil war, the peace agreement signed on 7 July of this year provided the opportunity to end this tragic period and resolve, in a peaceful and lasting way, a conflict which has caused immense suffering to the population.
Nevertheless, the hopes which gave rise to this agreement have not been fulfilled and today, five months later, we must note with great concern and sorrow that the rebel attacks against civilians, the killings and rapes, have not only failed to diminish, but have actually increased.
Therefore, we Christian Democrats, who have always defended the use of dialogue and reconciliation, wish to repeat our complete condemnation of the acts of violence and violations of human rights which are still being carried out and deplore the delay in the development of the peace process.
However, above all, we wish to call on the parties in the conflict to abandon arms for good and respect the commitments contained in the agreement.
Since words are not enough, however, and actions are required, we earnestly request that measures be adopted and means provided that will allow compliance with the agreement.
In particular, the Security Council of the United Nations must decide to go ahead with the deployment of international peacekeeping forces.
Also, the necessary funds must be provided so that the agreement may be put into effect; particularly - and this has already been mentioned - with regard to the promotion of development and education, of all those measures which will finally allow the population of Sierra Leone to come together and live in peace, freedom and democracy.
Mr President, I think that the current situation in Sierra Leone sets a dangerous precedent, not only for Africa but also for the rest of the world.
In July, a peace agreement was concluded between the government and the RUF rebels.
This is laudable, if it were not for the fact that we are dealing with one of the world' s cruellest rebel groups, without a political goal other than gaining control over the diamond.
One of the goals of the peace agreement is to provide general amnesty, for crimes against citizens as well.
It offers the rebels various ministerial posts and also the important presidency of a committee authorised to exploit and export minerals.
This is a worrying sign: a sign that terror works; that the mutilation and killing of citizens not only remains unpunished, but even pays; that any warlord could take up arms against a democratically elected government and be rewarded into the bargain.
For the government, the peace agreement is a pragmatic solution.
Indeed, President Kabbah does not have his own army.
He completely relies on the West African peace-keeping force ECOMOG and on the Nigerians, in particular, but they have already announced that they wish to retreat from this bloody war.
This means that the President now has his back against the wall.
This is why the European Union must urge the UN to deploy the peace-keeping force quickly in order to end the terror.
This is why more should be invested in the programme for the disarmament of rebels.
Finally, we need to continue to advocate a form of justice on behalf of the thousands of victims of this terror movement.
If not, a scenario similar to that in neighbouring Liberia is likely to present itself, where people choose a warlord for fear that he would otherwise take up arms again.
This is, I think, totally unacceptable.
Mr President, to term these on-going brutalities in Sierra Leone as bestial is an insult to animals.
After eight years of civil war, the road to peace seemed finally clear but the abhorrent brutalities, in particular those against women and children, carry on relentlessly.
Child soldiers are abused on a large scale to pander to the malafide interests of adults.
It is impossible to stabilise and reconstruct the country as long as citizens continue to be slaughtered.
Europe should make a financial contribution to implement the DDR Programme.
Diamond smuggling must be addressed efficiently.
European support for rehabilitation programmes is also essential.
Indeed, good mental and physical guidance of the victims is urgently required.
It is also vitally important for enduring peace that the guilty parties are brought to justice rather than being appointed to ministers.
When are the animals returning to their cages?
Mr President, as many previous speakers have said, Sierra Leone offers the absolutely worst example of what happens when a country uses child soldiers.
In our Finnish newspapers, we could read a week or two ago about an eighteen year-old girl who had been compulsorily recruited, had suffered an amputation and had been raped.
She could see no future and no hope.
For me, her story represents everything that is so horrific about the use of child soldiers and forces us to think about what we can do about this.
We should also note that a third of the child soldiers who have been recruited in Sierra Leone are still mere girls.
We should demand - and I hope that the Commission also does so - that the President should respect the agreement once entered into with Unicef. This means that Unicef should be allowed to work in the country in order to rehabilitate children who have suffered psychological damage.
I believe that Unicef is the organisation which has far and away the greatest experience of this work.
I therefore believe that, in the future, we should in every way support precisely this organisation, for it is psychological damage above all that the children are suffering from and which makes many of them want to return to the military forces.
It is this that is one of the most serious threats for the future.
Mr President, here too, I should like, on behalf of the Commission, to welcome expressly the fact that the European Parliament has turned its attention to this subject this afternoon.
I think it is very important that we make it clear that the horrific human rights violations such as those which we have seen and which we are seeing in Sierra Leone are a matter of concern to all Europeans because it is our understanding that human rights and human dignity are indivisible throughout the world and we will not tolerate a selective perception which results in our taking a closer interest in acts of violence in our own region than in the eruptions of violence which we have witnessed in Sierra Leone for several years now.
I agree with those who have said that there are few conflicts in the world which are as barbaric, as bloodthirsty and, unfortunately, as hopeless, as far a political solution is concerned, as this conflict in Sierra Leone.
The peace agreement concluded in July was welcomed at the time by the European Union.
We called on all parties to help implement it and stated that we ourselves were prepared to do so.
We could see that it would be very difficult and we could see that, in the final analysis, all the conditions for a working, stable, democratic rule of law in Sierra Leone would have to be created anew and that there was only limited willingness to cooperate.
Like Parliament, we are therefore extremely worried about the latest violations of the ceasefire and we are concerned that the peace agreement is only being implemented slowly, if at all.
Nonetheless, we must ask ourselves what we can do to help the tormented victims of this conflict.
Merely stating that the situation is horrific does not help, which is why we are starting by offering concrete help with reintegration with the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programme.
Since 1997, the Commission has been financing reconstruction of the social and economic infrastructure destroyed by the war through its rehabilitation programme.
With the help of this programme, families settling there and former fighters are obtaining jobs and an income.
We are currently working on a bigger programme to the tune of some EUR 20 million to support reconstruction and reintegration.
This programme should replace the current programme, which expires in the middle of next year.
Further help to resettle rural communities is being given in the form of agricultural resources and is being funded under the food security budget line.
ECHO will also provide further humanitarian aid.
In 1999, non-governmental organisations and UN organisations received EUR 14 million for the benefit of the people who had suffered during the war.
It included aid for Sierra Leone - refugees in neighbouring Liberia and Guinea and, as referred to here, help for NRO, which gives psychological and social support in the refugee camps, has initiated aid programmes for demobilised child soldiers and is addressing the particularly gruelling problem of mutilated children in order to give them some prospects in life.
The lady Member just said that these children had no prospects.
I do not think we should accept that so readily.
I think that we should do everything we can to give these children a dignified life.
I should like to remind you that the scope of humanitarian aid in Sierra Leone does not depend on the funds available but on the security situation in the country itself.
At present, the aid organisations are severely hampered in their work by the insecurity which prevails in the northern and eastern provinces of the country.
Whether or not there is additional impetus in the disarmament process and hence an improvement in the security situation will depend this month on the arrival of the UNAMSL forces, the UN mission to Sierra Leone.
The Commission is currently preparing further help for the year 2000.
We are, in fact, discussing further aid for the children affected by the war with UNICEF, the Ministry of Social Affairs and with various groups from civilian society.
I should like to stress here that the Commission will always be prepared to examine proposals from these groups for action in the human rights sector.
The Commission is also prepared to examine funding for the Truth and Reconciliation Committee being set up under its budget line for human rights and democracy.
Thank you, Commissioner.
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place this afternoon at 5.30 p.m.
Human rights
Mr President, I am pleased that we in Europe can say that the death penalty has been abolished.
The abolition of the death penalty belongs, as it were, to our culture.
Unfortunately, however, we did not see the abolition of the death penalty in the UN in 1999.
We all know that the death penalty is still on the agenda in Iran, Turkey, China and Yemen.
I find it particularly tragic that America, the land which champions freedom and human rights, has maintained the death penalty.
At the moment, two European Union citizens are on death row, a Spaniard in Yemen and an Italian in the USA, a Mr Barnabei, who is due to be executed in the year 2000.
Mr Barnabei, who was previously a respectable man, is accused of having killed a young woman.
This is my cause for concern insofar as, like me, he is an Italian citizen.
I urge the Commission and, of course, this Parliament, to do everything it can to get this death sentence commuted to life imprisonment or postponed, not just because leading American legal experts have indicated that there may be a miscarriage of justice, as is often the case, but also because he is an EU citizen.
Mr President, it once again falls to the European Parliament to condemn the death penalty, the greatest violation of human rights which is still being committed in the world, often and to all our shame, under the protection of laws which have been created by men who represent the sovereignty of the people.
Today we are talking about the sentencing of two European citizens, a Spaniard and an Italian, who have been condemned to death, as has already been said, in Yemen and the United States respectively.
In the case of the Spanish citizen, Nabil Nanakli, furthermore, there is no sufficient information regarding the trial, arrest and current situation of the prisoner, which has mobilised the entire Muslim community.
We have stated in this House that they is no such thing as a just death penalty, that no human being may condemn to death or execute another human being, that there is no recourse to any law, to any sovereignty, to the independence of any State, which can justify this violation of life itself.
The defence of human rights is at the very heart of our Union.
To globalise the respect for human rights must be our prime objective.
I am not making - and this Parliament is not once again making - a humanitarian declaration.
It is a political commitment, it is Politics with a capital 'P' , and it is the European Union' s foreign policy.
Therefore, I would like to draw attention to point 5 of our Resolution, which says that we repeat our request to the Council to incorporate into negotiations with third countries - with all of them - "the abolition of the death penalty as part of the human rights clause" .
We expect a response from the Council in this respect; a response and a commitment which is also political.
I have received a book which has been published to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe, a book whose title reads "Europe, all of us under the same roof" .
Let us be ambitious, let us extend the European roof, let us extend our civilisation, let us put into practice a phrase which, fortunately, this book quotes.
In the words of Albert Camus: "Neither in people' s hearts nor in the customs of society will there be peace while the death penalty remains legal" .
Mr President, for a Christian, requesting a moratorium on capital punishment and its abolition is not just a duty or a proper act, but an ethical choice made out of respect for people who have done wrong and who can and must redeem themselves.
We are opposed to deaths caused by man' s interference, such as abortion and euthanasia.
A guilty verdict is irrelevant to this request.
We would ask for this moratorium even if the person were a confessed criminal and there is all the more reason for us to do it when there may be reasonable doubt about their guilt.
If, on the basis of formal documents on civil rights, we ask for humane conditions in prisons, there is all the more reason for us to oppose the death penalty and we cannot therefore understand how countries that are recognised as civilised can still have cruel and uncivilised regulations.
Finally, I would like to stress that, taking the modern view of studying the consequences of criminal judgements, the punishment should fulfil a rehabilitative function, enabling the citizen who has done wrong to take up his place in civil society again.
Knowing these values, we are firmly reasserting our request for a moratorium on capital punishment for the two condemned citizens in Virginia and the Yemen.
Mr President, we are not today invoking an abstract principal but are intervening on behalf of a young Italo-American, Derek Rocco Barnabei, 33 years of age, who has been living on death row in a prison in Virginia for six years, with the daily nightmare that he may die for a crime that, in all likelihood, he did not commit.
How many others are in the same position? How many others, like him, do not have the necessary funds to pay for lawyers or the expensive analyses which could, perhaps, completely exonerate them?
It is our duty to continue protesting about the death sentence, and as the Pope did last Sunday, to continue to clearly call for the moratorium proposed by Italy to at least be applied to the member nations of the UN.
We are keeping the hope alive that the third millennium will start with this proposal being accepted.
In the meantime, we are continuing to do practical work, by backing initiatives such as the one in Tuscany which aims to raise funds to allow Rocco Barnabei to carry out DNA tests to prove his innocence, and inviting you, President, to use all the means at your disposal to ensure that the message of Parliament and the European institutions gets through to the American authorities.
Right of women to vote in Kuwait:
Mr President, it is regrettable that, at the close of the 20th century, a century symbolised so positively by the peaceful women' s revolution, there are still countries, such as Kuwait and Afghanistan, where half the population, women that is, is still denied fundamental human rights.
In Kuwait, at the end of November, the parliament rejected the proposal to recognise a woman' s right to vote or to stand for election with 32 votes against and 30 votes in favour. This is not only a violation of human rights for women and an abhorrent political act but, paradoxically enough, it is an infringement of the Constitution of Kuwait, Article 29 of which stipulates that "all citizens are equal before the law, regardless of gender, religion, race or ethnic background" .
What is more, Kuwait is a signatory to the UN' s International Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
It appears that the members of the Legislative Assembly - all men of course - are not bound by the country' s Constitution or by laws or international obligations, or by the political will of the leadership of the country which submitted the relevant decree for adoption.
However, this decision, apart from its antiquated misogynistic and deeply antidemocratic nature, is a clear message of resistance against any attempts to modernise and democratise the country.
That is why the European Parliament needs to send a strong message of support and solidarity to the women of Kuwait who are fighting for their fundamental rights.
We also call upon the representative of the National Assembly to make all possible efforts to review the issue and to restore justice for women so that by the next elections in 2003, the women of Kuwait will have full political rights to vote and to stand for election.
Mr President, the state of Kuwait offers many opportunities for able women today.
Dr Rasha Al-Sabah, the long-serving Under-Secretary of Higher Education, is joined by Dr Fayezah Al-Khorafi, President of the University of Kuwait; Her Excellency Nabila Al-Mulla, who is Ambassador of the State of Kuwait to Austria; Siham Ruzuqi, the Assistant Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Oil; another Assistant Under-Secretary: Sarah Duwaisan at the Ministry of Planning; and in civil society: Shaikha Hussah Al-Salim Al-Mubarek Al-Sabah, the President of Dar Al-Athar Al-Islamiya, the Islamic Museum of Kuwait.
It is not surprising with this record of achievement of highly able women in Kuwait that, on 16 May 1999, His Highness the Prince of the State of Kuwait issued an official decree giving the Kuwaiti woman the right of voting and of nomination to parliament, but it is parliament who has turned this down.
Despite this, the Kuwaiti Parliament is different from the other parliaments of the Arabian Gulf.
The 50 Members of Parliament are directly elected, not nominated, not appointed as is the case in other Arab Gulf States.
The Members of Parliament can question ministers in parliament at any time.
That questioning can be so fierce that it can even lead to the resignation of ministers.
Also, the parliament controls the government's annual budget.
I believe that there will be another vote before too long, perhaps within two or three months, because this is a democratically elected parliament.
It is unthinkable that universal suffrage in a democracy will not be achieved in the end.
As a parliamentarian, therefore, I call upon my fellow parliamentarians - here and in our national parliaments too - to urge Kuwaiti parliamentarians to give women that right to vote and stand.
That is an historic step forward and one that I believe they will not regret.
Mr President, I would like to say a few words on the resolution concerning the right of Kuwaiti women to vote, a situation which is extremely worrying.
It touches fundamental human rights.
This right is also laid down in the Kuwaiti Constitution, as is stipulated in the resolution and it is, of course, commendable that the Kuwaiti government and parliament have implemented the same.
It is, however, unfortunate, how this came about.
The bill was not passed for two reasons.
Firstly, it was not submitted correctly as the emir did this during recess and secondly, the rank and file did not subscribe to it, so there is also an issue with the rank and file.
So the emir submitted the bill during recess.
This is why MPs who agreed with the content voted against it out of protest against the procedure.
The same was true for fifteen ministers who have voting rights in parliament.
The second issue which forms part of the larger picture is mainly an issue to do with the local government officials.
They are all men and they have shown little enthusiasm when it comes to women joining them in the local government.
This is why the MPs have voted against, often for fear of their own rank and file - there is no party structure but people are elected directly - and for fear of their own positions.
Hence my plea, Mr President.
If a clause is added to paragraph 4 in the resolution that a delegation is to go to Kuwait, then the issues of local government will also need to be addressed, as well as the procedural issue, because it is extremely awkward if such an important bill were not to be passed due to a procedural error.
I look forward to a positive outcome to the vote on this resolution.
Mr President, every time we hear in this Parliament about the denial of basic human rights, like the right to vote or the right to stand for election, it should serve to strengthen our own resolve to promote and improve democracy in all parts of the world.
So, although the vote of the Kuwaiti National Assembly on 30 November to deny those very rights to women in Kuwait was a deep disappointment, it offers some hope for the future.
The closeness of the vote in November has strengthened the resolve of the women and men in Kuwait who are working for this change in the law.
They have pledged not to give up the campaign.
They have set the 2003 general and municipal elections as their target for the first time that women will ever vote in Kuwait.
They are going to put forward a women's rights bill every year in the National Assembly until they succeed in doing that.
While we condemn the decision of the Kuwaiti National Assembly on 30 November it is also important for us to use our elected positions as parliamentarians to encourage and support those who want to bring about change.
After all, it is not so long ago that women in many European Union countries were engaged in years of campaign and protest to win the right to vote and stand in elections.
This was what brought about that change.
In the United Kingdom, for example, the suffrage movement was set up in 1860.
It was not until 1918 that some women - not all - got the right to vote.
It was not until 1928 that all women in the United Kingdom got the right to vote.
So we have been through these campaigns before in other countries.
If we look at an international level, by 1990 women had the right to vote in almost every country where men could vote as well.
Only Kuwait extended the vote to men and not to women.
While it is difficult for most of us even to comprehend this kind of system, we have a responsibility to the people working there to support them in every way we can.
Situation of women in Afghanistan:
Mr President, I would like to thank the other parliamentary groups for their support and for their contributions to this initiative in favour of Afghan women.
I believe that the whole world is aware of their situation and for this reason has supported this initiative.
By defending their rights we also defend our own.
The resolution which we are debating today must be one more contribution to the ending of the situation of women in a country, Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime, through its authoritarianism, is causing terror throughout the population and international alarm.
The public execution of Zaarmeena, the obligation to wear the burka, the denial of the right to healthcare and education for women are but a few examples of the flagrant violations of human rights committed in that country.
Serious violations of women' s rights are committed every day, unpunished by a government which supports and encourages acts of repression and torture against them.
This Parliament, the European Parliament, has the moral obligation to express its solidarity with the Afghan women, to request that the UN intervene more actively, to ask the Member States to continue to refuse to recognise the Taliban regime until it respects human rights and puts an end to its discrimination against women.
The approval of this resolution may be a step - however small - in that direction.
Women currently make up 52% of the world population and, nevertheless, we are one of the groups which is most discriminated against and marginalised.
The case of the Afghan women illustrates the problem of the lack of respect for human rights which takes place every day in all corners of the planet and also in this Europe of ours.
We all know about the white slave trade, murders and abuse etc..
Perhaps there is little we can do from this House, but we have the duty to put pressure on the UN and the Member States.
I rise to speak about the women of Afghanistan.
At a time when Christmas is approaching, this offers one opportunity, among the multiplicity of human rights abuses globally, for Muslims and Christians to come together against the forces of evil.
For Islam and Christianity both uphold the rights of women, and the abuses of human rights against women that are taking place in Afghanistan, and have been taking place for so long now, are against the ethics of Islam.
No proper Muslim in the world will support the treatment of women that has been meted out by the bestial Afghan sadists and torturers.
It is an unbelievable situation but it is one in which we can join hands, bring forces to bear upon the Taliban society and free those poor women.
Why have we held back? I am ashamed of this.
I call upon us all to intervene in Afghanistan with Islam, with Christians, with Jews, with the entirety of the world.
There can be no hanging back in the millennium: free these poor women now!
Mr President, we are living through an era full of contrasts and contradictions and while, in the European Union, women' s rights are fully recognised, in some countries they are even denied the right to be, the very right to exist.
While this morning a Member pointed out the fact that the three institutions of the European Union responsible for signing the budget were presided over by women and saw this as an illustration of what the third millennium may represent for the consolidation of equality of rights and opportunities for men and women, in Afghanistan we see how the Taliban regime not only denies women - millions of women - their most basic rights - such as rights to education, healthcare and a profession, not only does it commit violence against them for the mere fact of being women but, through the denial of these rights, it is also denying them the freedom to live their own lives, it is denying them their status as human beings.
The European Parliament, which is always sensitive to the cause of human rights, cannot remain inactive in the face of the greatest violation of these rights: the systematic discrimination and violence which women are today suffering in Afghanistan of which the public execution of Zaarmeena is just one tragic example.
Therefore, once again, we want to roundly condemn the Taliban regime.
We want to demand that the international community, in particular the United Nations, but also the European Union and its Member States, intervenes with all the means available to it, to put an end to the extreme discrimination suffered by Afghan women.
And, above all, we want to send evidence of our solidarity with the women of Afghanistan and communicate to them our commitment to continue working with them so that they may regain their full dignity as human beings.
Mr President, I echo the sentiments of the two previous speakers in wholeheartedly welcoming this motion unequivocally to condemn the appalling human rights record of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and in particular the persecution of Afghan women in the name of religion and culture.
Women have borne the brunt of tragedy in Afghanistan through years of war.
They have suffered a multitude of human rights abuses: rape, sexual assault, forced marriages and prostitution.
The intimidation of women has been used as a means of dishonouring and dehumanising entire communities.
Since the Taliban regime took over in 1996, the plight of Afghan women has continued.
A barbaric social code has been imposed, based on intimidation, humiliation and coercion of a female population that has been stripped of all its fundamental human rights.
For Afghan women freedom of expression, freedom of employment, freedom to attend health and family-planning courses, access to education, all those things as we know them simply do not exist.
Yet it was not until 15 October this year that the European Council took action on an air embargo and a freeze on funds to the Taliban.
That was not as a result of the apartheid-style policies of the regime vis-à-vis women, but as the result of the Taliban protection of Mr Bin Laden.
Nevertheless, I believe that this action should continue until the unacceptable discrimination against women in Afghanistan comes to an end.
The first speaker put it very well in saying that this resolution can play a part in that process.
It may be a small part, but we certainly have a responsibility as a Parliament to play some part in bringing this regime and its inhumane policies to an end.
Mr President, Djibouti has a population of half a million comprising two Muslim tribes, the Issas and the Afars.
Djibouti's national assets are its port and its strategic position in the Horn of Africa.
Western powers, including France, exploit its strategic position.
Ethiopia uses its port.
Trapped in the conflict between the Afars and the Issas and the problems of the neighbouring countries, and with the desires and strategic policies of countries which dominate its strategic position, it is caught in a situation where it is desperately poor and, of course, undemocratic.
The leader of Djibouti today is doing things that we absolutely abhor.
The Afars' leader is in jail, without trial, with his supporters in abominable conditions.
He is going blind.
Such conditions exist in Djibouti today that we really have to look at our policy because it is part of Lomé, it receives aid from the EU and one of our Member States, France, is very strategically placed and has considerable influence in Djibouti.
This sort of dictatorship, this sort of terror of civilians and abuse of resources by unnecessary expenditure on arms for a country of that size is totally inexcusable.
It ought to be like the Singapore or Hong Kong of Africa.
It should really be a very prosperous place.
So I hope that you will all support this resolution condemning the abominable conditions of prisoners and civilians in Djibouti.
Mr President, we were all delighted yesterday when the Sakharov Prize was awarded to Mr Gusmão who was imprisoned by the authoritarian regime in Djakarta.
Through him, the Sakharov Prize honours the struggle of all those men and women throughout the world who are fighting for more justice, democracy and freedom.
This is why I am asking you to look closely at the attacks on human rights in Djibouti and specifically at the situation of the political prisoners.
This is particularly justified given that, as already stated, many Member States have very close relations with Djibouti.
Yesterday, several associations in France strongly protested when France again prepared to grant aid to this country.
You should know that for the last nine years the bulk of this country' s own budgetary resources has been devoted to financing the civil war.
Wages and pensions have not been paid for seven months.
Despite the previous resolutions of this House, reinforced by the International Federation of Human Rights League' s report confirming the precarious conditions of detention of the political prisoners, acts of violence, humiliation and attacks on the physical integrity of individuals are still standard practice in the prisons of Djibouti, particularly in Gabode Prison.
Here in May, forty-five hunger strikers were refused access to medical care and some died.
The families of prisoners are subject to constant pressure and threats. Women are raped and tortured.
The army and police are carrying out military operations in the districts of Tadjoura and Obock and are subjecting the population in the north of the country to a suicidal food blockade.
I would remind you that Djibouti is a signatory to the Lomé Convention which stipulates in Article 5 that aid for development is subject to respect for human rights.
Nowadays, aid should also very definitely be subject to respect for freedom of thought and expression, fair trials, access for detainees to basic medical care and the requirement to return refugees and displaced persons to their region of origin.
The Council and the Commission must make every effort to ensure that Djibouti respects the conventions which it has signed.
A peaceful political solution must be found as quickly as possible.
Finally, it is essential that our President forwards this motion for a resolution to the Council, the Commission and the ACP-EU Joint Assembly.
This century started with the Great War and ended with terrifying images of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
I firmly hope that we will now be intransigent towards all these daily attacks on human rights, for it is these small acts of cowardice which lead to genocide.
Mr President, the human rights situation in Djibouti is giving us great cause for concern.
The political prisoners are being held in terrible conditions for they are either packed into cramped cells or kept in isolation.
Hygiene is totally lacking and they have no access to medical care.
A tuberculosis epidemic has broken out on several occasions and two prisoners have already died due to lack of care.
The political detainees have held hunger strikes to protest against the conditions of their detention and to demand access to medical care and their release in the absence of a fair trial.
We should remember that most of the prisoners are being held in preventative detention without having been brought before the courts. Among the prisoners who are ill is Mohamed Kadamiousouf.
He is the European representative of the Front for the Restoration of Unity and Democracy. He was illegally extradited from Ethiopia in 1997 and, in the absence of medical care, risks losing his sight.
As respect for human rights constitutes an essential element of the cooperation and development between the European Union and the Republic of Djibouti, we demand, in accordance with these principles, the release of all political prisoners and access to medical care for all detainees. We particularly want emergency medical care to be given to Mohamed Kadamiousouf to prevent him losing his sight.
We also demand a guarantee of freedom of expression and political pluralism which are essential for any democracy and the end to repression against opponents of the regime. Finally, we ask the Commission to use all the means in its power to ensure respect for human rights in Djibouti.
Mr President, I am incensed by the conditions of detention of political prisoners in Djibouti. Yet I am just as incensed by the hypocrisy of the leaders of France who could, if they wanted, immediately end the authoritarianism and violence of the regime in Djibouti.
Everyone knows that this regime is being kept going, only with difficulty, by the French State.
Without financial help from Paris and without the presence of one of the main bases of the French army abroad, this regime would not last a month.
The leaders of France of all political persuasions may protest loudly in Paris about human rights, but in Africa and Asia they are supporting regimes which are trampling all over the most basic rights and freedoms.
Attacking the government of Djibouti alone will therefore at best conceal the responsibilities of the French Government and will at worst prop up a policy of support for an authoritarian and repressive regime.
We can join in the protests against the conditions of detention of prisoners in Djibouti only by clearly stating that, although the gaolers are in Djibouti, some of those who are really responsible have seats in the French Government.
Arrest of the President of the Court of Auditors in Nicaragua:
Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen, the arrest of the President of the Court of Auditors in Nicaragua, Mr Agustín Jarquín, and the institutional changes which must be seen as undermining the Court of Auditors fill us with great concern.
We agree with the representatives of the Member States in the Council and, if I have understood correctly, Commissioner Verheugen, we are in agreement with the European Commission.
We have just learned that the ambassador of Nicaragua in Brussels has resigned because he no longer wishes to represent this government in Nicaragua following the incidents of the past week.
Mr Agustín Jarquín is an upstanding democrat and has carried out his work as President of the Court of Auditors in a highly efficient and impartial manner.
This view is shared not only by those of us who knew him personally, but also by his colleagues at other courts of auditors in Central America and the Caribbean who elected him as president of the OCCEFS.
Even the representatives of the International Monetary Fund and the Interamerican Development Bank supported his appointment.
Obviously his work was too efficient for the liking of some members of the present and previous Nicaraguan government.
The government has been systematically undermining the Court of Auditors over recent months.
This undermining culminated in a pact concluded between the government and a previous governing party.
This pact resulted in the abolition of the office of President of the Court of Auditors and the installation of a party-politically dominated committee.
On 10 November this year, the former President of the Court of Auditors, Agustín Jarquín, was arrested on grounds which, in our view, do not, under any circumstances, constitute grounds for arrest.
The European Union and the European Parliament in particular cannot accept the systematic undermining of the Court of Auditors.
We in the European Parliament forced the European Commission to resign because it was unable to defend itself against accusations of the inefficient management of funds levied by the Court of Auditors and others in Europe.
Imagine what would happen if the President of the Court of Auditors or a prominent representative of an auditing authority were thrown into jail on such flimsy grounds! I think the outcry would be enormous.
As far as are aware, there is no cause for concern at the moment about Mr Jarquín' s health, but we shall monitor the situation closely to ensure that he is treated properly.
We are particularly worried at reports that his family, and his daughter in particular, have been physically attacked.
I would ask the Commission to monitor this very closely.
I would now like to address the President of Nicaragua, Dr Arnoldo Alemán, in Spanish.
Mr President of Nicaragua, we would like to help your people.
The Nicaraguan people, having suffered so many natural disasters, need help urgently, but European Union cooperation with the Government of Nicaragua is only possible if basic standards in terms of human rights and democracy are respected and if the administration of funds is safeguarded in accordance with the law. To this end, a strong and independent Court of Auditors is required.
Mr President, if the welfare of your people concerns you, please stop systematically weakening the Court of Auditors and its members and reverse the decision to remove the post of General Auditor, the so-called "Pact" .
(DE) Thank you.
(Applause)
Mr President, human rights, freedom and the democratic functioning of a state are fundamental and unquestionable values.
Therefore, we do not accept any limitation of these values by criteria of national sovereignty or respect for geo-strategic balances.
The establishment of international criminal courts, the refusal to allow crimes against humanity to lapse and the refusal to submit human rights policies to a state' s commercial interests are principles and objectives that we consider to be fundamental.
The fact that the possibility of a judicial trial is being used for political objectives deserves our concern and justifies particular attention in terms of the situation in Nicaragua.
We feel, therefore, that the European Parliament must continue to follow this process and that if this suspicion is confirmed, by us or by reputable and credible human rights organisations, we will have to use the full weight of our force to end this situation.
Having said this, and in accordance with the principles for which we are fighting, we must be rigorous and cautious before casting doubts on what is a judicial decision by a sovereign state.
On the other hand, our interference would not be justified by the way in which the system of politicians supporting their own interests and holding incompatible political posts is put into practice in Nicaragua.
We cannot intervene on the basis of the popularity polls of the various Presidential candidates and in relation to the main electoral issues under discussion in a sovereign state on which Nicaragua' s voters will soon pass judgement and on which they, and only they, have the right to do so.
With regard to this, we would like to know what your reaction would be if we proposed a resolution requiring an ex-Prime Minister of a Member State to declare his income with regard to commissions received for arms deals, on the basis of opinion polls and bypassing the institutions of that country.
It would make more sense to pass this kind of resolution on a Member State of the European Union than on a third country, but even in that case, it would constitute an attack on the functioning of that state' s institutions and on the ability of its citizens to resolve the problem internally.
This is why we appeal to the EPP to postpone this vote until our next part-session and that if, in the meantime, the political nature of Mr Jarquín' s sentence is confirmed, we shall act properly.
Mr President, the liberal group had severe doubts as to whether or not to declare this resolution urgent.
Indeed, the issues concerning the treatment of the President of the Nicaraguan Audit Office, Agustín Jarquín, by the Nicaraguan government have been around for over a year.
It is, of course, a very serious matter which deserves in-depth discussion, but as far as we are concerned, we would prefer it if this was dealt with by the competent committee and not in this hasty manner.
It is a political issue.
Indeed, one cannot help wondering whether there was a political motive behind the Audit Office' s accusation that the democratically elected government is corrupt?
Quite possibly. After all, Agustín Jarquín, now under arrest, is a possible candidate for the presidency.
There is also another question.
Does this corruption inferred by Jarquín actually exist within the Nicaraguan government? That too is possible because many say that Jarquín is unimpeachable.
It is not up to us to make a party-political choice in Nicaragua.
Mr President, the matter is now in the right hands, namely the courts in Nicaragua, and should therefore not be dealt with by this Parliament.
Mr President, as a member of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and as a Member of the Basque Parliament, I must point out firstly that the European Union communicated to the Government of Nicaragua, by diplomatic means, on 18 November, the need for a rapid solution to the issue we are dealing with today and to remove the obstacles suffered by the Republic of Nicaragua' s Court of Auditors and to tell them, very categorically, that if there is no transparency, they may lose European Union funds.
We can clearly question the means which Mr Jarquín has used to an absolutely legal end, that is, investigating the rampant corruption in Nicaragua, a corruption which extends to the very highest authorities and which, for example, has multiplied the assets of the President of the Republic by a thousand.
What is absolutely obvious to any impartial observer, however, is that, in this case, the intention has been precisely to prevent the investigation of corruption with the collaboration, furthermore, of the Sandinistas, and to get rid of the person who was going to be leader of the opposition in the Republic of Nicaragua.
I hope that the European Union will intervene in this matter. That is what is required.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
That concludes the debate on human rights.
The vote will take place at 5.30 p.m.
International criminal court
The next item is the joint debate on the following motions for resolutions:
B5-0337/1999 by Mr Wuori and others, on behalf of the Greens/ALE Group, on the ratification of the Rome treaty on the statute to establish the permanent international criminal court;
B5-0344/1999 by Mr Sauquillo Pérez del Arco, on behalf of the PSE Group, on the ratification of the Rome treaty to establish the permanent international criminal court;
B5-0349/1999 by Mr Malmström and others, on behalf of the ELDR Group, on the ratification of the Rome treaty to establish the permanent international criminal court;
B5-0373/1999 by Mr Oostlander and Mrs Grossetête, on behalf of the PPE/DE Group, on the ratification of the Rome treaty to establish the permanent international criminal court;
B5-0381/1999 by Mr Muscardini, on behalf of the UEN Group, on the ratification of the Rome treaty to establish the permanent international criminal court;
B5-0386/99 by Messrs Puerta and Di Lello Finuoli, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, on the ratification of the Rome treaty to establish the permanent international criminal court.
Mr President, it was an historic event when, in July 1998 at a conference in Rome, it was possible to adopt the treaty to establish the international criminal court.
It was a treaty which would make it possible for an independent court to judge people who had committed war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
Unfortunately, we know that there is a great need for such a criminal court.
Ninety States signed the Rome treaty, but so far only six countries have ratified it.
That is precisely the problem.
If we are to progress further and if the Court is really to be able to begin its work, then at least sixty countries must ratify the treaty and hand this over to the UN.
We must all work towards the goal of obtaining a functioning court within a few years.
My group urges the Council and the Commission to do their utmost, politically and diplomatically, to bring this about.
At the same time, one ought not to forget the applicant countries which I believe require a lot of support if they are to be able to be involved in this.
Paragraph 5 of the resolution is, furthermore, a very important paragraph indeed when it says that the developing countries must be given economic aid if it is to be possible for them to be involved in the process of establishing a criminal court.
Mr President, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of aggression involving actions against third countries are the four types of crime which could be tried in the international criminal court.
The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of victims of armed conflicts already oblige States to pursue and try the perpetrators of such crimes.
The plan for an international criminal court is another step forward in the creation of an international humanitarian legal system.
I am reminded here that the preparation period for the statute of the international criminal court was long and tense.
I had the honour of participating in that process on behalf of the world parliamentary community in my capacity as the then President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
I can therefore bear witness to the fact that, in that very complicated negotiation, many concessions had to be made in order to draw up a text which, although falling short of our initial aspirations, achieved the necessary consensus and was finally able to come into play as an acceptably effective instrument.
It would be irresponsible today not to publicly recognise our disappointment at the fact that, a year and a half later, only 91 States have signed it and just five or six have ratified it when - as Mrs Schörling has said - 60 ratifications are necessary for the court to come into effect.
Therefore, by means of the resolution we are about to approve, the European Parliament is coherently maintaining the support which it always expressed for this initiative.
However, to sum up, what we are going to do here in these final debates of the year and the century is to publicly and formally recognise that this issue is still outstanding, and that we also have the commitment to persevere with our efforts to fulfil the objective which we set on approving the court' s statute, also urging the Council and the Commission to act to this end.
In all these actions, we Socialists are guided by the awareness that, in a world which is being globalised, it is essential that the Rule of Law is globalised as well and this is what we should work towards.
Mr President, in many contexts the EU is de facto sitting upon quite a lot of countries' ratifications.
I am especially pleased that Commissioner Verheugen is here today and hope that he can use his influence to ensure that we have the applicant countries, as well as other countries which want to cooperate, alongside us on this issue and that we obtain a significant number of ratifications.
It is also a shame that we are forced to note that only six Member States have signed this treaty.
If, however, we involve more Member States, applicant countries and cooperating States in this work, then we shall make some progress along the road. The destination is certainly a compromise, but we have to start somewhere.
Secondly, I hope that we can work for those resources which are needed if the treaty is to be able to function.
This, I believe, will be an important priority for us in this Chamber in the future. I also hope that, in the future too, Members of the European Parliament will have the opportunity to be involved in working parties, as we were at an earlier stage.
Mr President, this is about the reconciliation of nations.
It is also a legal instrument to guarantee this reconciliation.
We know that reconciliation is only possible if justice is done.
This insight helps form the basis for the international tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia: do justice, not as a victor but from a supra-national viewpoint and with a view to living together in future.
Our group, therefore, warmly welcomes the fact that an international court has now been set up with a more universal authority which complements national courts where they fall short.
Member States and candidate countries of the European Union should, of course, lead the way.
This includes the thirteenth candidate country, Mr President, Turkey.
One can hardly suppress a smile if one talks about Turkey in this context.
I hope that the Commission and Council succeed in exerting pressure on other countries in order to achieve ratification of the EC Treaty.
Financial support is needed to enable poor countries to take part in these court activities.
This will play an important preventative role, irrespective of political considerations of an amoral nature and immune to political blackmail.
Big criminals can no longer expect that their crimes will go unpunished.
The Milosevices, the Karadices, the Mladices of this world, they will know.
The international criminal court constitutes a breakthrough in politics.
It confirms that politics is not a question of power where legislation serves to cover our embarrassment, but quite the opposite, that the central role of politics is to create legislation where power is of benefit.
Mr President, this Parliament will need to be acutely aware of this, also with regard to the most recent debate on Nicaragua.
It is downright scandalous if matters which are totally unacceptable in terms of human rights are covered up out of party-political considerations.
Mr President, I hope that this Parliament and the groups which, based on their own convictions, can muster a better position, will take a clearer stance in this respect.
Mr President, I believe that this criminal court is of tremendous importance and I should like to say to Mrs Thors that the Member States of the European Union should do their own homework before asking others to do it for us.
That does not mean that others should not do theirs, it means that we must ensure as a matter of urgency that this criminal court is up and running soon.
There are two reasons for this.
The first reason is prevention.
I was at a conference held by our group a few days ago in Banja Luka.
There was much to see that was encouraging, such as the Serbian opposition, which has got off to an auspicious start.
However, I also met a man who sat trembling with fear as he related all the crimes which he had committed in this period in the Republic of Srpska.
I found the conversation extremely interesting because it more or less proved that, if he had known that he might appear before an international criminal court, he might perhaps have behaved differently.
I think that this preventative aspect is tremendously important, not on account of the criminals at the top, those who possess criminal energy which transcends everything, but on account of the criminals at second or third remove who must know that, in the end, they cannot escape punishment for their crimes, even if they considered themselves as temporary vicarious agents of very powerful figures.
That is why this criminal court is important for prevention, but it is also essential for another reason.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, irrespective of who has committed it, and the problem facing specific criminal courts is that they are always a little on the lookout for triumphant justice.
It is therefore extremely important for there to be a uniform criminal law against genocide and crimes against humanity throughout the world and for there to be uniform sentences and a common criminal court throughout the world, where everyone knows that wrong is always wrong and must be prosecuted, irrespective of the charge, irrespective of the ideology and irrespective of the nationality under which they appear in court. Injustice is still injustice and injustice must not go unpunished.
This will avoid a situation in which the one-eyed is king and will help the concept of the law on which the European Union is founded to take hold throughout the world.
That is why action on this criminal court is one of the most important tasks facing the European Union in the immediate future.
Thank you for that statement, Commissioner.
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 5.30 p.m.
Íatural disasters
The next item is the joint debate on the following motions for resolutions:
France - B5-0334/1999 by Mr Piétrasanta, on behalf of the Greens/ALE Group, on the floods in the south of France on 12 and 13 November 1999;
B5-0338/1999 by Mr Pasqua and others, on behalf of the UEN Group, on the disastrous floods in the south of France;
B5-0345/1999 by Mrs Berès, on behalf of the PSE Group, on the floods in November 1999 in the south of France;
B5-0374/1999 by Mrs De Veyrac, on behalf of the PPE/DE Group, on the floods in the south-west of France;
B5-0387/1999 by Mrs Ainardi, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, on the serious floods in the south-west of France.
Denmark, Germany, UK and Sweden- B5-0376/1999 by Mr Rovsing and others, on behalf of the PPE/DE Group, on the hurricane disaster in Denmark, Germany, UK and Sweden.
Vietnam- B5-0336/1999 by Mrs McKenna, on behalf of the Greens /ALE Group, on the floods in Vietnam.
Mr President, I want to speak about the natural disasters which hit the south of France in the night of 12 to 13 November 1999. These were totally exceptional in their violence and the extent of the damage caused and have led to 35 deaths and FRF three to four billion worth of damage.
I know that the EU budget does not provide for any credit line for natural disasters occurring in the territory of the Union.
It has also not escaped me that it was this House which wanted to delete this credit line.
However, I must ask you to intervene and ensure that the European Union does something, because it can in two ways.
Firstly, it can authorise France to reallocate the outstanding balance of the Structural Funds not committed from the 1994-1999 programming period.
Much of the funding still remains with 54% of credits not committed under Leader, 38% under Interreg, 49% under URBAN and 88% under RETEX.
In order to quickly intervene, the Commission simply needs today to authorise France to redeploy part of these credits.
Secondly, it can help by ensuring that, for the new programme of Structural Funds for 2000-2006, the zoning for reconstruction is properly in place and the most affected zones are included under Objective 2.
Finally, is it not ironic that our Union can act totally legitimately in countries outside the EU but that it does not have the means or the ability to act within the EU?
At a time when everyone, particularly Mrs Fontaine, is making rapprochement between the people of Europe and the European Union the key issue for this Parliament, I feel it is important for the EU to be able to act in a positive manner when our people are in difficulty.
Mr President, if we want the people of Europe to feel an attachment to the European Union, then the EU must show solidarity with its people when they are struck by misfortune, as in the south of France.
In the night of 12 to 13 November, this region experienced rain and floods which have caused deaths and devastated the daily life, economy and agriculture of the region.
As soon as these events occurred, I wanted this House to show its solidarity with the victims by tabling a motion for a resolution on urgent subjects on 15 November.
As the Rules of Procedure unnecessarily delayed this, I have joined my motion to those tabled in this sitting on the same subject by other groups.
I hope that this motion gains a firm following. I ask the Commission to examine the measures which could assist the people of Tarn, Aude, Pyrénées-Orientales and Hérault.
In particular, the EU aid allocation zoning should take account of this situation.
In the future I will, of course, vote for motions for resolutions on urgent subjects tabled by my fellow Members when similar events occur.
Obviously, I hope that these are few and far between but, in each case, it seems essential that we, as the elected representatives of the people of Europe, should show our solidarity and our humanity.
Mr President, I think there should be proportion in everything.
Natural disasters are occurring around the world.
There have been a large number of these in recent years.
Thousands of people have been killed and been made homeless as a result of hurricanes, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. It is these that are natural disasters!
It is only right that the EU should try to help in these different contexts.
I happened to be in southern Sweden in the course of the twenty-four hours we are talking about here.
It is true that the wind was blowing. It was even stormy.
It sometimes is in southern Sweden.
This is not something the European Parliament can do anything about.
Individual people were affected and there was serious damage to the countryside, but there was no natural disaster.
This is a question for Sweden and Swedish insurance companies and not something the European Parliament should be devoting time to.
Mr President, I want to speak along similar lines to Mrs De Veyrac. The catastrophic floods which have occurred in the south of France have levied a very heavy toll with 39 deaths and widespread chaos in the region.
In the four départements affected by the floods of 12 and 13 November, namely Aude, Hérault, Pyrénées-Orientales and Tarn, the bill will be in excess of EUR 0.7 billion and compensation to individuals will amount to EUR 0.5 billion.
The damage to public services is estimated at over FRF 1 billion because of the extensive damage to roads and railways, power and telephone lines, buildings and public facilities.
All sectors have been affected, with over 200 craftsmen having been caught in the disaster, 260 businesses having suffered serious damage and 1,518 employees having been affected.
I would draw Parliament' s attention to the fact that this is indeed a natural disaster for these floods and this rain were twenty times greater than normal.
This is not therefore the result, as we would sometimes like to believe, of carelessness in local development.
This is truly a natural disaster.
This is why I would urge Parliament to act in this region.
I would like to draw Parliament's attention to the situation of the people in Vietnam as a result of the floods.
The International Federation of the Red Cross has said that hundreds of thousands of people in Vietnam are likely to be short of food over the next nine months.
It has also been reported that there have been violent protests by peasant farmers in the Thai Binh province.
This seems to be very much in relation to the fact that the Vietnamese are trying to modernise and the modernisation costs are being basically borne by the peasant farmers.
This situation has to be tackled because taxes on the peasants have increased dramatically over recent times because of the need to modernise.
The farmers themselves are in a very, very critical situation, where they are extremely short of food and the excess taxes on them makes the situation even more catastrophic.
We should listen to the appeals from the International Federation of the Red Cross and pay attention to the plight of these people who have, in the past, been decimated by such things as the Agent Orange used by the US. Now natural disasters are causing even greater problems for them.
Mr President, Commissioner, I, of course, support the joint motion for a resolution tabled by my fellow Members. I must, however, return your attention to the floods which have occurred in my region, the South of France.
This is clearly a natural disaster which has caused nearly 40 deaths and whose consequences are continuing to severely test some of our citizens today.
One month after the event, the drop in the water level has revealed a scene of desolation and confirmed the extent of the disaster. This, together with the loss of human life, means that prevention efforts must be reconsidered.
In terms of private and public property such as buildings and heavy infrastructure and in terms of the economy, the requirements are enormous and are in the order, as has been mentioned, of FRF 6 billion.
Faced with such an urgent demand, the State, local authorities and community groups are mobilising throughout France.
For example, FRF 42 million in aid has been approved by the Departmental Council of Pyrénées-Orientales, FRF 50 million by the Languedoc-Roussillon region and FRF 400 000 by the Senate. Finally, the French Government has announced aid of FRF 1.2 billion.
You are no doubt aware of the proposals made by Commissioner Barnier in terms of structural policy.
These will help to ensure long-term risk prevention, but I must again ask the Commission to demonstrate its propensity for solidarity on an urgent subject.
This House, too, must demonstrate its legitimacy to the people of Europe, which is a principle we all, including the President, very much support.
Finally, I wish to draw your attention to the pollution which is once again threatening the coast of Brittany and which will also require an additional financial effort to be made by the European institutions through the urgent procedure.
Mr President, Mr Michel Barnier explained here on 16 November that the Commission is following the problems caused by the floods in four départements in southern France very closely, that it deeply regrets the loss of life and that it will do its utmost, as and where it has the authority and means to do so, to ensure that the damaged areas obtain suitable support.
Solidarity will certainly not be lacking.
Nonetheless, we must be allowed and we must be able to exercise it.
The motions for resolutions call on the Commission to intervene in various forms in order to repair the tremendous material damage.
This is also in keeping with the wishes recently expressed by the responsible politicians in the region to both President Prodi and Michel Barnier.
I have to tell you that it will not be possible to provide extraordinary emergency help for families in the damaged regions.
That does not require any special justification here in Parliament, given that no-one except Parliament need defend its budget rights.
As you know, there has been no specific budget line in the budget of the European Community to pay for natural disasters in countries of the Union for years now.
I do not think, given the protection of Parliament' s rights, that we can simply act as if this situation did not exist.
The motions to support farmers in the form of disaster aid can, however, be examined within the framework of Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
On the other hand, the deployment of resources left over in the Structural Funds from the programme planning period 1994 to 1999 is hardly worth considering as the available funds have already been allocated to specific measures, in this case in close collaboration with the relevant French authorities.
We have already re-programmed at the request of the relevant French authorities.
In the view of the relevant Commission services and French agencies, this will account for all the Community funds provided.
For the new programming phase from January 2000, the damaged areas in the four départements in question, which currently qualify for support as Objective II or Objective V areas for the period from 1994 to 1999 or which belong to the new Objective II areas, could obtain money from the Structural Funds.
As a result, the Commission can grant financial aid to restore infrastructures and equipment which qualifies for support as well as aid to agricultural structures within the framework of the forthcoming programme planning for the period from 2000 to 2006, which is shortly to be discussed with the French authorities.
Account must be taken in this respect of the fact that aid to build or restore housing will not qualify for intervention by the Structural Funds.
It should also be borne in mind that the provisions of the regulation require an ex ante environmental impact study for all forms of intervention by the Structural Funds.
Here again, Parliament, with its particular emphasis on the environmental aspect, would certainly not understand if we were to waive this.
Allow me to say a few more words about the problem of the risk area.
Once the French authorities have finalised estimates of the damage, the Commission will be able to provide specific support to protect against natural dangers within the framework of the new programme planning for 2000 to 2006 in the form of cofinancing for investments.
That applies in particular to soil protection, the regulation of watercourses and the local water systems.
Allow me to conclude with a brief word on Vietnam because I think that there is definitely a difference when a leading industrial country or one of the poorest developing countries in the world is hit by a natural disaster.
The European Commission is well aware of the dramatic situation in which the victims of the floods in Vietnam find themselves.
They have been the worst for forty years.
The European Union has provided emergency aid.
ECHO is currently analysing the situation in the areas affected in order to assess the extent of additional damage and the requirements of the provinces affected.
Then we will answer the question of whether European aid for Vietnam should be increased.
The European Union is working with all the international organisations dealing with the situation in Vietnam in a spirit of cooperation and trust.
We are trying here to coordinate disaster aid as sensibly as possible.
Mr President, I do not want to prolong this sitting.
However, I must say to the group of very welcome visitors who have just arrived that it is not through any spite on our part that we are suspending the sitting for a quarter of an hour just when they have arrived.
That concludes the joint debate.
The vote will take place at 5.30 p.m.
(The sitting was suspended at 5.10 p.m., and resumed at 5.30 p.m.)
Mr President, may I request, if the Members agree, that we vote en bloc on all the proposed amendments to the resolution on Nicaragua, given that they all go in the same direction.
I should like to say two words about why this is not a joint resolution and why the PPE has tabled proposed amendments to its own resolution.
The reason is that we held a meeting on Tuesday with a view to finding a joint resolution and the other groups, especially the Liberals and the Social Democrats, warned us that they would be unable to support certain clauses in the resolution.
So we said, let us take the controversial points out and just leave the essentials in.
We therefore only have things in it which are unanimously supported by Parliament.
Commissioner Verheugen also clearly stated that Parliament should express a view on this matter.
As the Liberals and Social Democrats were still unable to sign the joint resolution which we negotiated, we said we will table proposed amendments which water down our own resolution somewhat, in order to give Members the possibility in the end of voting in favour.
Thank you, Mr Liese.
Are there any objections to the suggestion that we make this an en bloc vote?
Mr President, I am sorry, but our group objects to an en bloc vote.
I acknowledge your objection and we shall vote on one amendment at a time.
After the vote on the motions for resolutions on the international criminal court:
Mr President, I merely want to say that we Liberals do not want to participate in these votes concerning natural disasters because we think that they do not belong in this Parliament. We also believed that we had reached an understanding that we should no longer discuss resolutions of this type.
Mr President, I did ask for the floor before we proceeded to the vote. I wanted to say that our group tabled a specific motion for a resolution on the natural disasters in France and that we are naturally co-signatories of the joint motion.
You did not mention this.
I would be grateful if the corresponding correction could be made.
Thank you, the correction will be made.
I apologise, as I did not see you. It was an oversight.
Adoption of the Minutes of the previous sitting
The Minutes of yesterday' s sitting have been distributed.
Are there any comments?
Mr President, yesterday, at the end of the vote on the budget, there was a moment when the three institutions concerned were represented by women and the President concluded by saying that the Millennium was ending on a high note.
I just wanted to mention that, as the authoritative Greenwich Observatory has also pointed out, the Millennium will end on 31 December 2000.
International Fund for Ireland
Mr De Rossa has requested the floor for a procedural motion.
De Rossa (PSE).
Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to raise the question as to whether or not the amendments which have been tabled in relation to this proposal are in order.
This is a proposal without debate and we will not have any opportunity therefore to debate the amendments being put forward.
I happen to oppose the amendments but it seems to be that we have been put in an invidious position, asking us to vote on amendments which we have not had an opportunity to debate.
Mr President, on a point of order, I should like to inform the House that the amendments are in order.
They are in line with the procedure.
It is true that it would have been much better had we had an opportunity to debate this in committee and, as was said at the beginning of the week, that would have been a much better opportunity to have the issue debated.
Unfortunately, the decision was taken that this would be put without debate and the amendments are in order.
They are extremely important.
Mr President, like Mr De Rossa I also question the fact of the amendments being in order.
The sensitivities of Northern Ireland are too important for any ill-informed bandwagoning on the International Fund for Ireland.
I would ask you to consider very carefully how we proceed here, particularly as we are not in a position to have a debate.
I share this concern with my colleagues, Mr De Rossa and Mr McCartin.
Raytheon has been welcomed to Derry by no less than Nobel Peace Prize winners, John Hume - one of our own colleagues, and David Trimble.
Raytheon will be funded by the Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland.
Not one euro nor one Irish pound from the International Fund for Ireland is going to Raytheon.
The amendments are totally inappropriate.
Ladies and gentlemen, Messrs Cashman and Simpson have also requested the floor, but I would be grateful if we could concentrate on the task in hand.
The truth, and this may remove the need for the Members' procedural motions, is that it was Parliament that decided on Tuesday not to hold the debate.
Therefore, this President, although he might like to reverse this decision, is not going to do so.
This is clear.
This is the decision of Parliament, and furthermore, incidentally, Mrs Doyle, I was rapporteur when this fund was approved for the first time and there was a long debate at the time about its creation.
Therefore, I am sorry to say that we cannot make changes now.
Mr Simpson has the floor.
Mr President, it is not my intention to delay the House any longer than we have to.
I do not want to get into the argument about the amendments because that can be sorted out by a vote.
One point should be made, however; the process is not ideal.
Mrs Doyle and other Members are right but the problem we are faced with in the Regional and Transport Committee, which is the committee responsible, is that at the very last minute we were asked for urgency by the Council because somebody, somewhere, realised that we needed a resolution from this House to carry on the particular fund in question.
Therefore, the only way we could do that was by this very quick procedure, through the committee on Tuesday, by a letter from the President.
We thought we had an understanding that there would not be any amendments.
Sadly, that has not been the case.
It is only fair to point out that given the time we had to do this, the committee and the Parliament have worked as effectively and as quickly as we possibly can in what proved to be difficult circumstances so that the money could be released next year for this very important fund.
Thank you very much, Mr Simpson.
Before the plenary session, both the services and the Presidency examined the comments on the admissibility or otherwise of the amendments.
Political evaluation is one thing but the technical possibility of admitting amendments is another thing altogether.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, they are perfectly permissible.
Therefore, we shall now proceed to the vote on the proposed regulation.
(Parliament approved the Commission' s proposal) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE
- The amendments are inadmissible on the following grounds: the objectives of the Fund do not include promoting large-scale inward investment.
The Fund exists to promote urban and rural development, community development, to enhance skills and to improve the environment; the justifications cited in the Green amendments are spurious.
The Fund has no role in the Raytheon project, nor could it have.
The amendments simply seek to prevent the Fund from doing something which it could not do anyway; the purpose of the proposed Regulation is to permit the continuation of the financial contribution of the EU to the Fund; it does not in any way seek to amend the substance of the existing Regulation EC 2614/97, which is why the urgency procedure was agreed in the first place.
On the matters of substance, the projects referred to in the Green justification are not military projects.
- The vote on the fund which was tabled late by the Council was facilitated by the EP without debate, on the understanding from all groups including the Greens that there would be no amendments.
It would seem that at the instigation of Ms Patricia McKenna, the Greens broke this understanding.
As a consequence of this I was being asked to vote on amendments which I had not had the opportunity to consult about or research and on which I would be precluded from debating on the floor of the House.
The company criticised in the amendments (Raytheon) was in fact welcomed by two Nobel Peace Prize winners (Hume/Trimble).
In addition, if we are to shut down or refuse investment from every company which may have an association with the arms industry, then we would have to close virtually every American and Japanese software company on the island of Ireland with catastrophic consequences.
I am opposed to the arms industry but we must not put at risk the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland with ill-conceived and badly researched amendments in the European Parliament.
- The EUR 45 million to the IFI is most welcome, and a continuing recognition of the European Union's support for the cross-border communities in Ireland.
Any attempt to sully the reputation of the IFI is totally unacceptable and amounts to ill-informed political bandwagoning on the sensitivities of Northern Ireland and are not worthy of this Parliament.
For the record, Raytheon, a high-tech software plant to which the amendments are directed, is to be funded by the IDB, the Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland, not the IFI.
Community agricultural statistics
The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0089/1999) by Mrs Redondo Jiménez, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision amending Decision 96/411/EC on improving Community agricultural statistics [COM(1999) 332 - C5­0042/1999 - 1999/0137(COD)].
Mr President, the Commission proposes extending Decision 96/411 until 2002, removing certain articles in order to simplify its implementation and bringing forward the payment of 30% of the Community contribution to the Member States, and to do all of this in accordance with the codecision procedure.
In 1997 an amendment to this Decision was presented which extended by two years the deadline for Member States to send their reports and the deadline for the Commission to draw up a progress report for Parliament and for the Council.
Given the importance of the common agricultural policy, the availability to everybody of reliable information for the purposes of decision making is essential.
Therefore, it must be a priority for the institutions to provide the means for this information to be ever more complete, reliable and quick, and therefore agricultural statistics must be ever more flexible, harmonious and coherent with other statistical fields with the possibility of incorporating new sources.
To this end, we have to identify, firstly, the areas in which it is possible to implement rationalisation measures, secondly, areas where there are new and increasing needs, and thirdly, general principles in accordance with which actions are carried out.
Having said this, it should not be necessary to point out that all the Member States should act in accordance with these intentions.
However, this is not the case: this is a voluntary programme for the Member States.
I would like to stress that it is not at all easy for this Parliament to understand that any Member State might say "I am not interested, I am not taking part" .
The common agricultural policy belongs to all the Member States. It affects all of us.
Therefore, I would like both the Commission and the Council to reconsider the matter and for the next proposal submitted to this Parliament to establish the obligatory nature of its application in all Member States, with a single legal basis in the statistical field.
There is another aspect which I would like to point out to the Commission and the Council with regard to amendment 5, which I hope will be taken into account, given that the information requested in it, according to Regulation (EC) 1390/99, which entered into force on 23 November 1999, establishes in article 2 that "each Member State will provide the Commission with all the information classified by budgetary items which will be forwarded at the request of the Commission within 30 days" .
Therefore, I request a specific commitment by the Commission that it will define each year, amongst the priority plans for technical action proposed to it by the Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics, the things requested in our Amendments Nos 4 and 5, since otherwise, the codecision procedure would be delayed and it would become more difficult for the Member States to draw up their statistical reports.
Therefore, I would like to hear the Commission' s opinion with regard to this point in the debate.
Mr President, I want to thank Mrs Redondo for her report and for her excellent explanation of what all this is about and why it is important.
One of the things that I miss from the information we were given is the cost of this operation or what the cost would be if every Member State involved themselves in it.
I do not suppose it is very big.
Nevertheless the information is necessary for a Parliament discussing the subject.
Of course, as the common agricultural policy develops from a situation in which we pay subsidies at the point of export or at the point of entry into intervention into a situation where we pay subsidies for individual animals on an acreage or the hectarage of crop planted, obviously it is extremely important that we know exactly how many animals there are in the Union, how many hectares and how many olive trees and all the rest of it.
All that information is extremely important.
It is extremely regrettable if we, at European level, the institutions who organise the common agricultural policy on which the farmers of the Union depend for their livelihood, cannot obtain correct information on which to base an effective policy.
It is very hard to understand why we do not have better cooperation from all the Member States.
When we expand the European Union, or even without expansion, we will not retain all the provisions of the present policy.
Nevertheless, we will need this information so that we are able to extend some sort of assistance on a reasonable basis to the new countries of the Union where food production and agricultural production will increase by 50 per cent what we have in the Union today.
It is also advisable to remember that in the Court of Auditors' report, which has just come out and which was debated this week, we did not find in the whole agricultural sector any indication of massive racketeering or fraud on a large scale but we notice that there seem to be an awful lot of little problems with the number of livestock and the amount of hectarage for area aid and so on.
There are small errors over a very wide area and that is a serious problem that we have to address.
Finally, I would say that in the new Europe it is going to be important for farmers to base their levels of production on the projected quantities that will be produced in the Union.
That cannot happen if we do not know the statistics of the agricultural industry.
Increasingly, rather than screaming at the institutions of Union to solve the problems, farmers will have to come together and try to calculate what the needs of the market are and produce for those needs.
That does not mean that we want to bring an end to subsidisation.
For example, there is the pigmeat industry where we produce 18 million tons of pigmeat annually and we end up in a situation where there is a million tons in surplus.
Prices collapse, there is terrible hardship and indeed terrible profiteering by middlemen.
If we had good statistics, we would be able to deal with a problem like that before it arose.
Mr President, I would first like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, for this report and her excellent display of cooperation as chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development this autumn.
A viable system for statistics is an important basis for making good decisions.
Statistics have to be comprehensive, reliable and consistent.
The report quite clearly explains the legal basis of statistics, especially in Amendments Nos 2 and 3, which specify the Community' s share of the advance.
Politically, the most important message is contained in Amendments Nos 4 and 5, which urges the practice of cross-tabulating subsidies received according to, inter alia, farm surface area.
This information will be especially important when we consider the social side of agricultural subsidies.
It would be difficult to support a subsidy scheme that channelled most of the aid to the large farms in the best agricultural regions.
We have no data on this, but have to be content with the rumours that 80% of aid would go to 20% of farmers.
Amendment No 1 emphasised the importance of statistics in connection with enlargement towards the east.
This is a very important consideration that still means much work for the EU and the applicant countries.
The problems over statistics for the applicant countries will not be resolved through this report.
Problems have continued since the land register began to function.
Embarking on eastward enlargement without any information on its effect on the budget would be political suicide.
It does not help much, though, if our current data on expenditure is based on mistaken or unreliable data.
The most important aspect of statistical data on the European farmer is the reference yield.
When Finland became a Member, as a result of poor yield in previous years, we had to be satisfied with a figure that did not reflect the truth in normal years.
These reference yields should be raised to a realistic level as soon as possible, or we should start to reconsider the whole basis of their use and the idea of a drop in the price of grain as compensation for hectarage aid.
We cannot undertake to subsidise producers in regions of highest yield in Europe for years and years on account of price reductions that have sometimes taken place in the past.
The most obvious answer would be to harmonise hectarage aid as closely as possible within the whole territory of the EU.
Mr President, the ELDR group supports this report.
Mr President, rapporteur, everyone here agrees that we should highlight the need to have statistics for agriculture, at a Community level, that are as precise, as reliable and as coherent as possible, so that we can effectively assess the consequences of decisions taken under the CAP, particularly on rural areas.
European agriculture is not uniform. On the contrary, it is extremely diverse.
It is therefore essential that statistics are accurate enough in terms of land, and compiled in a harmonised way, for us to be able to obtain judicious analyses by production type and by ecosystem.
In 1996, the European Parliament adopted a report by Mr Jové Perez whose proposals aimed to make European statistics much more accurate and reliable.
Unfortunately, the Commission' s rather unambitious proposal that has been submitted to us has taken no account of it.
This is why we shall support all of the amendments put forward by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development as well as the one by Mr Jové Perez.
Indeed, it seems essential to us that the wealth of information stemming from the implementation of the CAP aid should be made use of as a source of statistics.
The cost to the Community budget would be almost nothing and statistical secrecy would be guaranteed through the data being incorporated.
This is the concern that led our group to table an amendment yesterday concerning the traceability of beef and veal because, as a result of the CAP aid, all animals in the European herd must be identified.
This applies to abattoirs, too, for reasons of food and animal safety.
I have not yet understood why the Commission has not accepted that, as of 1 January, these two facts, which have already been made compulsory across the Community, should be used to enable the operational start of traceability.
It is quite inconsistent to postpone the establishment of compulsory labelling of beef and veal for another year and, at the same time, to condemn France' s application of the precautionary principle, precisely because there is no such compulsory labelling.
If the free movement of products is not accompanied by rigorous labelling, consumers will think it is a confidence trick.
It is regrettable that Commissioner Byrne does not employ his zeal in the service of the health and the interest of European consumers.
Mr President, I too was under the impression that I would be talking about the regulation on hops but, since the issue of statistics has arisen, I feel it is my duty to address it.
As we all know, statistics often have different interpretations which can mean just what we want them to mean.
If this is the case, then inconsistent statistics will only exacerbate the problem.
This is why I also agree that statistics on the movement, policies and trade of agricultural products must be as consistent as possible. It would be ideal if each State did not, statistically at least, paint a different picture of our agricultural economy.
Then, despite any diverse interpretations, we would at least have one true common version of the facts which would help those wishing to examine in closer detail what those statistics actually represent.
I agree, therefore, that we should adopt the regulation, and I also agree with the comments on the amendments which have been made so that the Commission can see to it that the statistics paint as uniform and reliable a picture as possible.
Mr President, technical action plans were established for statistics in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999.
This is a sign of foresight, but it also shows that developments have been so rapid in recent years that standing still really means going backwards.
This area can justly be described by the phrase 'never finished, always on the way' .
The European Union ought, as quickly as possible, to be in possession of common statistical material which is comprehensive in all areas.
The Commission says that the Community' s agricultural statistics should continue to be adapted in the years 2000-2002.
This means that we are talking here about extending these.
If for a moment we look back to 1957 when the Treaty of Rome came into being, it was in fact the agricultural sphere which was the first big area upon which agreement was reached.
Today - nearly 43 years later - no completely satisfactory statistics have been established for this area.
The debate this week about the registration of animals showed very clearly that 12 out of 15 countries had not even begun preparations for this work.
Things are naturally interconnected.
Without registration, careful statistics cannot be kept and there are therefore, of course, opportunities for a series of errors regarding payments.
The Community makes contributions to offset the Member States' expenditure in connection with implementing the relevant arrangements.
It is therefore necessary that the Commission should now do some tightening up.
It cannot be the slowest countries which are to set the pace.
The Commission ought to set the agenda to a much greater degree and lead the Member States in accordance with the common resolutions.
How can we envisage re-establishing consumer confidence in food following all the scandals when the EU cannot even implement its own resolutions? Food safety, risk assessment and the very concept of safety are such important areas that there is no avoiding them nowadays.
Allow me, therefore, quietly to ask: when are we to put our own house in order?
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, there is no reason to hesitate.
The future belongs to those who prepare themselves for it.
Mr President, a little while ago another speaker again brought up the fact that the compulsory labelling system for beef is not to be introduced until 1.1.2001.
I am able to inform you that the Council has obviously adopted our demand to introduce this system by 1.9.
This represents a small victory for the European Parliament as far as the timeframe is concerned.
However, it did not reach this decision under the codecision procedure.
This would have meant it also having to adopt all the other proposed amendments that we voted on here yesterday in the simplified procedure.
Then all our proposed amendments would have been adopted in the codecision procedure.
Instead of which, the Council decided, under the old regulation 820/97, in accordance with Article 19 of the implementing rules, that the Member States now have the facility to continue with the voluntary system until 1.9.2000. I do not consider this to be the right strategy either.
It does, however, go some way towards meeting European Parliament requirements.
Apart from that, we are now going to continue with the codecision procedure for the other proposed amendments, which we voted on yesterday, for this process will run on after 1.1.2000.
The Council must give its reaction to this.
If it fails to adopt our proposed amendments then we will become involved in a conciliation procedure.
All the other matters that we want to include in this regulation will therefore still be a matter for debate.
I hope that we will be able to persuade the Council to adopt our proposals in this area too, and that it allows reason to prevail.
Mr President, following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty the proposals concerning statistics, including agricultural statistics, are based on Article 285.
It foresees adoption according to the codecision procedure.
The proposal submitted today for your approval is the first example insofar as agricultural statistics are concerned.
I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, for her excellent work and, in particular, for her cooperation with the Council and the Commission on this dossier.
The Commission is very pleased about the global support expressed in the report for the draft Council and Parliament decision.
The background is Council Decision 96/411(EC) on improving Community agricultural statistics.
It has put at the Commission's disposal a flexible tool which allows it to adapt statistical applications to changes in information needs.
This has helped to adapt the system of Community agricultural statistics to changes in the common agricultural policy.
In its report to the European Parliament and the Council the Commission has presented an overview of the actions undertaken during the period 1996-1999 in different areas.
The overall assessment of these actions by the Commission is positive.
However, the process of adapting national statistical systems to the needs arising from the reform of the common agricultural policy has not yet been completed.
The Commission has therefore proposed to extend for a further three years, with some minor changes, the validity of Decision 96/411(EC).
The changes are mainly aimed at either simplifying the implementation of this action programme or at reducing the delay for paying the Community contribution.
It is important to ensure that this new decision enters into force as soon as possible in order to avoid a vacuum in the present legislation.
An effort should be made to adopt this proposal after first reading.
As concerns Mrs Redondo Jiménez's report, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3.
The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendment No 4, even in its new, modified version.
This amendment would still imply some new obligations for Member States which have not yet been discussed in the Council.
This would certainly prevent the adoption of the proposal in the Council at first reading.
Nevertheless, the Commission agrees with the rapporteur that the additional information requested by this amendment would indeed be useful in order to have a better idea of the distribution of aid paid in the context of the common agricultural policy.
The Commission will therefore commit itself to include such actions in the next technical programmes, starting from 2001, in view of encouraging progress in this area.
We hope that this may reassure the European Parliament about our intentions and may lead Mrs Redondo Jiménez to withdraw this amendment in order to allow the proposal to be adopted at first reading.
- (ES) Mr President, I have to point out to the Commission that it is not an amendment by the rapporteur, but an amendment by the Committee on Agriculture and, therefore, it is voted on in committee and, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, it cannot be withdrawn.
Also, Amendment No 5, which would cause No 4 to lapse - which is the one that I hope the Commission will accept - only affects the Commission, not the Council.
Its content is already regulated by the new Regulation 2390/99, which will be coming into force.
Furthermore, the amendment does not include any additional obligation for the Commission.
Therefore, I hope that the Commission will accept it, because we have provided all the means for this proposal to be approved at first reading.
Mr President, just a short comment on Amendment No 5.
Unfortunately, we are not able to accept Amendment No 5 because we know that the Council would not accept it.
Mr President, as the applause for the rapporteur, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, confirmed, this is one of the most important measures we have voted on.
Indeed, in my opinion, statistics are fundamental and in Italy we are in the most terrible chaos as regards the statistics on milk from our cows.
Therefore, I voted for the report and I would like to express the hope that statistics will also be gathered on the number of pensioners in the fifteen Member States.
Many people say there are too many of them, but I say there are too few: statistics will allow us to ascertain their number.
For my part, I would like there to be more and more of them, because 'it is great being a pensioner' .
COM in hops
The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0083/1999) by Mr Xaver Mayer, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) 1696/71 on the common organisation of the market in hops [COM(1999) 302 - C5­0081/1999 - 1999/0128(CNS)].
Mr Mayer, I trust that after the sitting you will offer us a tasting.
I have no doubt, Mr Mayer.
Mr President, I simply wish to thank and congratulate Mr Mayer on the report he has carried out, which affects all the hop-producing countries of the Community and which, in the case of Spain, affects my region, Castilla-León, in the León area.
I agree with everything Mr Mayer has said.
The report has been unanimously approved in the Committee on Agriculture.
I congratulate Mr Mayer and I hope that he receives the support of this Parliament.
Mr President, Mr Mayer was so charming that I would like to extend the offer by suggesting that we have that beer in Bavaria itself, not here.
I shall now come to the point.
Hops are not a typical enough example for us to understand the importance of the common agricultural policy for farmers in the European Union. They do, however, show the extent to which it actually helps our farmers.
As Mr Mayer said, hops are a traditional product which is particularly important to the quality of beer produced, although production is very limited; some 4 000 hectares of land throughout the whole of Europe.
Yet a sufficient number of farming families in the countries where hops are produced, particularly in Bavaria, make their living from that product alone. These families should not be left to the mercy of continual price falls, neither should they be forced to desert specific rural areas because of difficulties arising from irregularities within the market.
There have been a number of changes to the main regulation relating to this particular product as a result of the market fluctuations and the changing needs of farmers, the most recent being the Council decision to set a uniform level of aid to producers for a period of five years.
This latest decision alters the obligations of the Commission arising from the previous regime, that is of having to grant annual aid, and Members States no longer need to grant aid for setting up production teams.
This development means that certain articles of the old regulation need to be revoked which, rightly so, is carried out in the new regulation for which we will be voting, together with Mr Mayer' s amendments, noting that the proposed regulation will not in any way affect the budget.
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the report. I can inform you that the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party will support the report when it is put to the vote.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I first of all want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Xaver Mayer, for a valuable report - and perhaps especially for his enthusiastic presentation of the hop paradise of Bavaria - together with the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for its constructive attitude.
I am very pleased that our proposal for changing the way in which the market for hops is organised has met with a positive reception. The Commission' s proposal is, of course, aimed at removing those stipulations which are no longer valid, either because deadlines have run out or because of previous changes to the common regime under which hops are organised.
These changes must be implemented before the basic regulation is consolidated.
Owing to the fact that the Council has resolved that the level of support is to remain constant for a period of five years, the Commission does not consider that it is necessary to submit a report every year on the situation concerning the production and marketing of hops.
The Commission therefore considers that Article 11 can be removed.
According to Article 18 of the proposal, we shall, however, be presenting, by 1 September 2000, a thorough assessment of the situation regarding the production and marketing of hops.
I am therefore afraid that the European Parliament' s two amendments complicate the text unnecessarily and that the requirement to receive information each year is already covered by the new proposal. This information will also be made available on the Internet.
That is why the Commission cannot adopt these amendments in this situation.
Mr President, firstly, I would be pleased to invite the Commissioner to Kloster Andechs in Bavaria, a place where seven different types of beer are brewed...
Secondly, I would like to make it known that next ...
(The President cut the speaker off)
Mr President, before leaving for Strasbourg, the pensioners who took me to the airport asked me "Is there going to be a debate about beer on Friday morning?" I replied "Yes, certainly."
"Well, you have to give an explanation of vote and say that we pensioners are in favour of the production and development of beer."
We are in favour not just because ten years ago, the Pensioners' Party put forward as candidate for Rome' s mayor the model Solveig Tubing, who was born in Berlin and was a great connoisseur and lover of beer, but also because my own personal studies on beer show that drinking it makes you younger.
I know that welfare institutions and governments are against developing beer, because this means that they have to pay out pensions for longer, but as representative of the Pensioners' Party, I am in favour.
Extension of exceptional financial assistance to Tajikistan
The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0093/1999) by Mr Savary, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision modifying Decision 97/787/EC granting exceptional financial assistance to Armenia and Georgia in order to extend it to Tajikistan [COM(1999) 391 - C5­0171/1999 - 1999/0172(CNS)].
Mr President, I thought, since I represent the Bordeaux area, that you were giving me the floor so that I could answer my Bavarian colleague on the subject of Bordeaux wine.
However, it seems that you are asking me to speak on Tajikistan instead and, as I have five minutes, I shall try to be as clear as possible about an issue that is perhaps rather esoteric and complicated.
It concerns exceptional aid to Tajikistan which is, as you know, a small country located between Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, China and Afghanistan.
There is a history to this issue and really what I would like to do today is to close a subject that began in 1991 with a loan of EUR 1200 million to the Newly Independent States when the Soviet Union collapsed.
The loan has been repaid by all of the States apart from three.
In 1997, three States were experiencing difficulties and were seriously behind in their repayments: Georgia, Armenia and Tajikistan.
Thus the Parliament was informed in 1997 of a proposal by the Commission, which aimed to reschedule and restructure these three countries' debts.
It was therefore decided to put in place two types of financial assistance. On the one hand there would be loans - at the time EUR 245 million had been earmarked for loans to these three countries - and on the other hand, a gift of EUR 130 million, whose main objective was to reduce the burden of debt and to improve the ability of these countries to repay.
1997 was also marked, and this is the crux of the issue, by a civil war in Tajikistan, a terrible civil war between the reigning power and the Islamic opposition.
Parliament then proposed, on the basis of Mr Kittelmann' s report, to defer aid to Tajikistan and that is why, two years later, now that the situation has returned to normal, we are being asked today to reopen the matter.
In fact, although the situation in Tajikistan has remained highly critical and worrying, in terms of politics as well as economics, it has gradually become more stable.
There has been an agreement between the different parties, which has been implemented and universally respected, even if security in the country is still subject to caution due to the presence of warlords and the powerful wave of Wahabi fundamentalism in Afghanistan.
In terms of economics, the country has made great efforts under the auspices of the IMF and is benefiting from a structural adjustment facility provided by that organisation.
We, the European Union, are therefore being asked to re-establish contact with Tajikistan and to implement a restructuring of the debt as today, around EUR 73 million is still outstanding.
What the Commission is proposing is actually to repeat what was done for Georgia and Armenia, which was to make provision for a new loan which would enable Tajikistan to repay the previous one but on much more favourable terms in order to give this country some breathing space, and to make provision for a gift of EUR 35 million for the period 2000-2004, in order to reduce the burden of debt.
Unfortunately, I have to say that the Commission' s proposal is extremely contradictory.
We are in fact being asked to make a loan of EUR 75 million and a gift of EUR 35 million and now we see that no more budgetary funds are available for donations and that, in 1999, we only budgeted for the donations granted to Armenia and Georgia, donations which are due to end in 2001.
As a result and quite logically, we, the Committee on Industry, within whose competence this matter essentially falls, have been told by the Committee on Budgets that under no circumstances could we endorse donations which have not been budgeted for today and which have not been provided for in the financial perspective, particularly in Category 4, which, as you know, is already under pressure through trying to finance Kosovo.
Therefore, the compromise which we have reached with the Committee on Budgets consists effectively of only keeping the loan of EUR 75 million whilst agreeing - a position of the Committee on Industry which I think has been understood by the Committee on Budgets - that Tajikistan should also be able to benefit from supplementary aid in order to reduce the monthly debt repayment of EUR 200 000 which it cannot afford.
Tajikistan is, in fact, the poorest of the Newly Independent States and the one that we absolutely have to stabilise because, rather like Chechnya and for other reasons besides, it is a country that could endanger the whole region, particularly because of its strategic position with regard to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which are very rich countries.
We have consequently tabled a series of amendments.
Firstly, amendments that endorse the donation; then amendments which point out to the Council and the Commission their contradictions by telling them that it would be desirable to grant direct aid, but by financing it under another line, and here I am thinking of TACIS; and finally, amendments concerning conditions: monitoring the way the funds are used, the political and democratic conditions and the monitoring of the Parliament.
Mr President, Commissioner, Tajikistan is not only the poorest of all the countries formed from the Soviet Union, it has also been the one to suffer the most on account of the turmoil caused by tribal feuding, which ultimately escalated into civil war.
The country failed to grasp how to employ the financial aid provided so far in a targeted manner.
The situation has only calmed down to some extent over the last few months, once the warring parties had ceased hostilities and resolved that their next step would be to form a coalition government.
General free elections are set for March 2000.
The international donor community, which includes Swiss organisations for the most part, is now prepared to carry on where it left off delivering financial aid, but with certain provisos.
Now that the situation has abated and there are more favourable prospects for future progress overall, the Savary report now attempts to provide renewed support for the macroeconomic financial aid for this country in the form of loans.
We hope that this will make it sufficiently clear to Tajikistan that it needs to improve its state machinery by embracing democratic development and undertaking the necessary reforms.
However, the financial aid in the form of loans should only be granted if there is a real possibility of the European Union being able to properly monitor the situation, if the process of national reconciliation continues and the elections, in particular the parliamentary elections set for March, are free and democratic.
As Mr Savary rightly said, this is also what we aim to achieve with proposed Amendments Nos 8 and 9, to which we give our unequivocal support.
If Tajikistan' s creditworthiness is to be restored, then the proposal in Budget 2000 is also to be welcomed.
The rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, has just confirmed to me that as far as this is concerned, a commentary is to provide for a particular form of financial aid to be made available again under the TACIS programme.
On a final note, I would like to say that the PPE group supports this report notwithstanding all the associated risks.
It represents a renewed, hopefully successful attempt to resume and promote economic and technical cooperation with Tajikistan.
Mr President, the loan which Tajikistan will receive equals this small and poor country' s share in an outstanding debt to the former Soviet Union.
As such, this will not solve any problems within Tajikistan.
The loan only prevents the outstanding debts from continuing to exist.
Central Asia, the majority of whose population is Turkish-speaking and a small part of which is Iranian-speaking, was conquered in the previous century by the Russian tsarist empire.
This empire did not look for colonies far from home or overseas, like most Western European States, but close by.
Although they were decolonised in 1922, they have remained linked to Russia in the form of Federal States of the Soviet Union.
The boundaries drawn by Stalin between the various linguistic and cultural regions in the ' 20s and ' 30s are now state borders.
This prolonged European influence means that we in the European Union should feel especially responsible for the vicissitudes of the five States which appeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The economy and environment are in a sad state of affairs in all fifteen States.
Authoritarian regimes have come to power and leave little or no scope for political opponents.
By means of referendums and intimidation, some presidents have their periods of office extended by ten years, without there being rival candidates.
In this respect, Tajikistan is no exception.
Should European money be spent on a country like this? In general, my group is not in favour of funding undemocratic regimes.
All too often, we have noticed that they receive funding in the expectation that they will regard this money as a reward for taking small steps towards greater democracy and human rights and as an encouragement to take further such steps.
In practice, however, this method does not work, as we have since found out in Turkey and Russia.
The funding is received, but the situation does not improve.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Tajikistan has reverted to the situation in the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth century.
There are several, regionally powerful families and groups which are fighting each other in a situation where warlords seize upon political and religious differences as an excuse to justify armed action.
The fate of Tajikistan largely depends upon what is happening in its immediate surroundings, such as the hopeless, violent conflict in Afghanistan.
A large proportion of the Tajikistani population lives in north-east Afghanistan, the area which is not in the hands of the Taliban.
The North of Tajikistan stretches out as far as the densely populated Fergana Valley which is partly located in Uzbekistan and is completely integrated into the economy and road network of this neighbouring country.
As a frontline area flanked, on the one hand, by the Russian sphere of influence and, on the other hand, by Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan, the present Tajikistani State has little chance of survival.
The only reason to inject European funding into Tajikistan despite all this is that funding increases the chance of survival of the Tajikistani population and offers more chance of peace than there would be without such aid.
This is the reason why my group can nevertheless agree with the proposals made in the Savary report.
Mr President, for our part, we will not be voting for the Savary report.
This is both for reasons concerning the choice of this country and out of more general considerations involving financial aid.
Although, of course, we have nothing against the sovereign State of Tajikistan, we nevertheless do not think that European States should drop their priorities, or to be more precise, the priority that they set a long time ago on the subject of cooperation.
This priority has now been in force for more than a quarter of a century through the Lomé Agreements.
For obvious reasons, which concern history as well as geography, Europeans felt it necessary to embark, throughout the 1970s, on a major course of cooperation with the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific in a way which is, moreover, highly original, known as the Lomé Agreements, which enable us to offer our Southern partners the benefits of stable prices for the produce which constitute their essential resources, protecting them from all-out free trade. Today we see only too well how this ruins the weakest economies.
Now under the battering, not from globalisation but from the globalist ideology, which European countries have accepted without closer examination, we have seen the ACP agreements being slowly dismantled over several years, their basic principles denied and, above all, we have seen reductions in several European countries' contributions to the EDF.
Now, at the same time, so-called exceptional financial aid to the most diverse countries in the world is multiplying, without any overall plan emerging, which means that our cooperation policy is nothing but a vague, huge scratching of the surface or, to sum it up, it is no longer a policy at all.
To this particular consideration we can add a second.
Tajikistan may have been spared the economic problems described in the report, moreover like so many other countries in the world, but it is nevertheless the victim of an ill-considered opening up of its borders and of the huge game waged by empires.
For our part, the best solution we can see would be to restore a new world trade order, which respects the sovereignty of States, their pace and their modes of development, and which also respects their traditions, traditions which we will not be able to make vanish with a wave of a magic wand just by imposing an election, human rights and what we quite hastily call democracy.
Mr President, the political tide in Tajikistan seems to be turning.
Only last week, President Ragmanov called for parliamentary elections to be held next spring.
After months of tug-of-war between the government and the opposition, agreement has finally been reached regarding the new electoral law.
I should point out, however, that these developments mark only the beginning of the democratisation process.
Tajikistan still shows features which are incompatible with a democratic constitutional state.
Indeed, the downside of the present positive developments is that during the next elections, a number of parties will remain on the sidelines.
They are excluded from participating.
This is hardly surprising as permission to participate in elections is still in the hands of former communists.
This remark regarding Tajikistan' s democratic status does not detract from the fact that quite a few changes have already taken place.
As such, international organisations and bilateral donors no longer see good reason for suspending aid to Tajikistan.
Even the European Commission, with the proposal it is making, seems to think it should put its oar in.
However, the Commission is losing sight of one important factor.
Earlier this year, the three institutions of the European Union concluded the interinstitutional agreement for a period of seven years, stipulating the financial ceilings for the various policy areas.
I would like to remind the Commission of this.
In the proposal to grant aid to Tajikistan, this agreement is not given much consideration.
Neither the urgent appeal by the IMF and World Bank to the European Union to increase aid to Tajikistan nor the argument of moral duty in the light of Tajikistan' s debts to the Union are in themselves good enough reasons to grant aid.
We are first of all faced with the European Union' s financial limitations.
The above agreement does not allow for making gifts to Tajikistan.
Moreover, we have recent experiences of entering into financial commitments which we cannot honour, as illustrated in the reconstruction of Kosovo.
The Commission has pledged a sum of EUR 500 million while the Member States do not want to make the necessary increase in the European budget at this stage.
A vague declaration of intent has since been drafted by the Council to prevent similar problems from occurring in future, but it remains to be seen what will come of this.
Kosovo is no better off at the moment.
Aid has been reduced to EUR 360 million and also spread over several years.
This incident has given me grave concerns regarding the Member States' willingness to make concessions once again within the context of aid to Tajikistan, even if only relatively small amounts are involved.
Member States find it hard to sell the idea within their own countries if the outcome of the negotiations at the Berlin Summit are undermined by reality.
Apart from a limited budget, the European Union has little political interest in Tajikistan.
The geographical remoteness makes it impossible to have any real influence on the democratisation process.
Although the European Union has an interest in being surrounded by large, stable regions, the tools it has available in order to achieve this are still very limited.
All this does not mean that we cannot do anything at all for Tajikistan.
On humanitarian grounds, I do agree with special aid as far as the loan component is concerned, but the gift component should be scrapped for the reasons I have outlined above.
I would also like to urge the Commission to ask Tajikistan' s bilateral donors and the Member States to grant special aid to this country on an individual basis.
After all, the scope of the budget of the national Member States is, politically speaking, less of a sensitive issue.
Finally, I would like to strongly advise the Commission, out of moral considerations, to resume the projects under TACIS for Tajikistan as soon as possible.
In this respect, we have to monitor the situation closely in order to ensure that the money ends up where it is needed, namely with the Tajikistani population, which is suffering under grinding poverty.
Mr President, were it not for the people of Tajikistan I would not be standing here today.
During the First World War, in 1916, my grandfather was a prisoner of war working on the railways in what used to be Russia-Central Asia, and he has often told me that he was only able to survive these difficult years on account of the hospitality and helpfulness of the people of Tajikistan.
But this is not why I am so keen to support Tajikistan' s cause, rather, unlike Mr Blokland, I believe that it is an issue that is of direct concern to us.
Tajikistan is situated in an area enclosed by China and Russia, which are at odds in this region, and by the Islamic world and the Caspian Sea, where there are immense deposits of raw materials.
In my view, this region represents the Balkans of the future, a Balkans in microcosm, and that is why it is in our vital interest, particularly as a number of nuclear powers are established there, to stabilise this region and prevent ethnic conflicts taking place there from having an impact on the entire world.
That is why I believe that we need to help Tajikistan on its difficult way ahead by providing it with a loan, but also with outright grants, it being clear, in this respect, that we will have to call upon the Member States as our own budget will not accommodate this.
Of course, we must demand democracy and the rule of law but, at the same time, we must not apply uncalled-for standards.
For centuries, Tajikistan was subjected to colonial exploitation and for eighty years it was brutally suppressed by Soviet Communism.
Today this small mountain race is making its way with difficulty and must not be made subject to European standards.
We must apply the same standards that we apply to developing countries; after all, we have been supporting the countries of Africa on the road to democracy for decades now, and the situation there still leaves much to be desired.
We have only been supporting Tajikistan for a few years now.
Therefore, whilst we must demand certain rules of the game, we must also be patient towards the people of Tajikistan, heavily promote the elections to take place in the spring and recognise that this is not just an act that will do honour to Europe, rather it is in Europe' s own best interests to bring peace to this region.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, a warm thank you to rapporteur Savary.
The Commission is very pleased to note that its proposal to grant exceptional financial aid to Tajikistan has obtained wholehearted support from Parliament' s relevant committee.
The Commission is supporting quite a lot of the proposed amendments, especially those relating to stricter Budget supervision (given the possibility of retrograde political developments in the country) and is also supporting the proposal that a final report should be delivered to Parliament in the year 2004.
The Commission cannot, however, accept the proposals regarding that part of the aid relating to subsidies.
It is impossible to implement this part relating to subsidies on existing legal bases, especially TACIS, because the resources included in the aid cannot be related to special projects or programmes. The aim is in fact to reduce the country' s debt towards the Community.
This proposal is also aimed at confirming the subsidy of EUR 95 million available to Armenia and Georgia in accordance with Council Decision 97/787/EC of 17 November 1997.
The Commission finds it difficult to accept a reduction of the subsidy to EUR 50 million.
The reasons for this are as follows. The Community' s financial exposure will continue to be high in an area whose stability has deteriorated, both because of the Russian financial crisis and the current situation in the northern Caucasus.
A significant reduction in the EU' s exposure has already been achieved, with the figure concerned going down from EUR 212 million initially, including interest on outstanding debts, to EUR 123 million at present.
A further reduction may, however, occur over the next few years if the aid is implemented as planned.
Armenia and Georgia will have difficulty understanding the fact that the Community is reducing its aid, in spite of the major efforts which these two countries, with support from the IMF and other contributors, have made to reduce their financial liabilities towards the Community.
This would put the Community in a difficult situation regarding both these two countries and the international community.
The Commission considers that it would be unfortunate if the Community were to refuse to confirm its financial aid to countries whose strategic importance to the Community is obvious.
Moreover, we ought, in the light of the present difficulties in the Caucasus, to send out political signals indicating that we want to continue to support the considerable efforts which are being made to achieve stabilisation and democracy, as well as to introduce reforms.
Mr President, after the voting, I would like to raise a point of order concerning the texts adopted yesterday.
If you would allow me, I would like to take up a few minutes after the votes.
You may do so.
(Parliament approved the legislative resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE
Mr President, I would like to say how pleased I am to give this last explanation of vote of 1999 on the Savary report, which I voted for.
I am very much in favour of this European Community initiative which aims to grant practical aid to the most deserving regions, such as Tajikistan.
I would like, as Mr Blokland said in his statement, to say to Commissioner Wallström - who is disturbing the sleep of Italian, Greek and Spanish pensioners because of superannuated cars which have to be quickly taken off the roads - that I would appreciate verification as to how the aid is distributed once it has been granted to Tajikistan and other States.
I would be pleased if it was given to people who need it, such as pensioners.
Mr President, very briefly on a point of order regarding the texts adopted yesterday.
During the debate, I was watching what exactly was written down regarding the vote for the Murphy report on late payment.
I would like to ask you to get your department to look at Amendment No 20 again, as I am 99.9% certain that this is not the text we voted on or at any rate not the text which should have been submitted because this is not what the Industry Committee provided.
I have asked to be given the floor officially because I fear that we will be unable to reach the departments during the Christmas break and in order to avoid problems during the conciliation procedure.
Thank you very much, Mrs Thyssen.
We will make the appropriate checks because, evidently, the Minutes have been approved; therefore, there will have to be a technical correction where appropriate.
Mr President, I do not know if this is a technical correction, but I have just discovered that I am not included in the Members from Luxembourg in Wednesday' s Minutes, concerning Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi' s report on the verification of credentials.
Mrs Reding' s name is there instead.
I know that I owe my seat to her being appointed a Commissioner but I do not understand, since I have been a Member of this Parliament since 16 September, why my name does not feature in the Minutes covering the verification of credentials.
Would you please rectify this?
Mrs Lulling, I cannot rectify this because this report does not affect you.
You were elected on 16 September - as you quite rightly said - and this report concerns those who were elected on 13 June.
You replaced Mrs Reding.
There will therefore be another report, which will, I hope, confirm your mandate.
Mr Posselt, I am very pleased, but in any case, I would remind you that, when requesting a procedural motion, you actually have to indicate the Rule to which you are referring.
Having said that, Parliament has reached the end of the agenda.
The Minutes of the present sitting will be subject to Parliament' s approval at the beginning of the next part-session.
Mr Manders has the floor for a procedural motion.
Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, the Bureau and all Members, a good transition into the new year.
Ladies and gentlemen, before you leave me alone, I would like on behalf of the Bureau, once again, to thank all the Members, all the services, officials, assistants and other co-workers and, if you will allow me - although all the co-workers work for us - perhaps a special mention should go to the language services which help us to understand each other here.
I would also like, although they are absent, to mention the Commission and the Council.
I am not going to re-open the 'Millennium or not the Millennium' debate, but I am going to wish all of you, and by extension, all the citizens of Europe which we represent, a happy year 2000.
Adjournment of the session
I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.
(The sitting was closed at 10.50 a.m.)
	226669
