resumption of the session 
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Friday 17 December 1999 , and I would like once again to wish you a happy new year in the hope that you enjoyed a pleasant festive period . 
although , as you will have seen , the dreaded ' millennium bug ' failed to materialise , still the people in a number of countries suffered a series of natural disasters that truly were dreadful . 
you have requested a debate on this subject in the course of the next few days , during this part @-@ session . 
in the meantime , I should like to observe a minute ' s silence , as a number of Members have requested , on behalf of all the victims concerned , particularly those of the terrible storms , in the various countries of the European Union . 
please rise , then , for this minute ' s silence . 
( the House rose and observed a minute ' s silence ) 
Madam President , on a point of order . 
you will be aware from the press and television that there have been a number of bomb explosions and killings in Sri Lanka . 
one of the people assassinated very recently in Sri Lanka was Mr Kumar Ponnambalam , who had visited the European Parliament just a few months ago . 
would it be appropriate for you , Madam President , to write a letter to the Sri Lankan President expressing Parliament 's regret at his and the other violent deaths in Sri Lanka and urging her to do everything she possibly can to seek a peaceful reconciliation to a very difficult situation ? 
yes , Mr Evans , I feel an initiative of the type you have just suggested would be entirely appropriate . 
if the House agrees , I shall do as Mr Evans has suggested . 
Madam President , on a point of order . 
I would like your advice about Rule 143 concerning inadmissibility . 
my question relates to something that will come up on Thursday and which I will then raise again . 
the Cunha report on multiannual guidance programmes comes before Parliament on Thursday and contains a proposal in paragraph 6 that a form of quota penalties should be introduced for countries which fail to meet their fleet reduction targets annually . 
it says that this should be done despite the principle of relative stability . 
I believe that the principle of relative stability is a fundamental legal principle of the common fisheries policy and a proposal to subvert it would be legally inadmissible . 
I want to know whether one can raise an objection of that kind to what is merely a report , not a legislative proposal , and whether that is something I can competently do on Thursday . 
that is precisely the time when you may , if you wish , raise this question , i.e. on Thursday prior to the start of the presentation of the report . 
Madam President , coinciding with this year ' s first part @-@ session of the European Parliament , a date has been set , unfortunately for next Thursday , in Texas in America , for the execution of a young 34 year @-@ old man who has been sentenced to death . we shall call him Mr Hicks . 
this is all in accordance with the principles that we have always upheld . 
thank you , Mr Segni , I shall do so gladly . 
indeed , it is quite in keeping with the positions this House has always adopted . 
Madam President , I should like to draw your attention to a case in which this Parliament has consistently shown an interest . 
it is the case of Alexander Nikitin . 
all of us here are pleased that the courts have acquitted him and made it clear that in Russia , too , access to environmental information is a constitutional right . 
now , however , he is to go before the courts once more because the public prosecutor is appealing . 
we know , and we have stated as much in very many resolutions indeed , including specifically during the last plenary part @-@ session of last year , that this is not solely a legal case and that it is wrong for Alexander Nikitin to be accused of criminal activity and treason because of our involvement as the beneficiaries of his findings . 
these findings form the basis of the European programmes to protect the Barents Sea , and that is why I would ask you to examine a draft letter setting out the most important facts and to make Parliament 's position , as expressed in the resolutions which it has adopted , clear as far as Russia is concerned . 
yes , Mrs Schroedter , I shall be pleased to look into the facts of this case when I have received your letter . 
Madam President , I would firstly like to compliment you on the fact that you have kept your word and that , during this first part @-@ session of the new year , the number of television channels in our offices has indeed increased considerably . 
but , Madam President , my personal request has not been met . 
although there are now two Finnish channels and one Portuguese one , there is still no Dutch channel , which is what I had requested because Dutch people here like to be able to follow the news too when we are sent to this place of exile every month . 
I would therefore once more ask you to ensure that we get a Dutch channel as well . 
Mrs Plooij @-@ van Gorsel , I can tell you that this matter is on the agenda for the Quaestors ' meeting on Wednesday . 
it will , I hope , be examined in a positive light . 
Madam President , can you tell me why this Parliament does not adhere to the health and safety legislation that it actually passes ? 
why has no air quality test been done on this particular building since we were elected ? 
why has there been no Health and Safety Committee meeting since 1998 ? 
why has there been no fire drill , either in the Brussels Parliament buildings or the Strasbourg Parliament buildings ? 
why are there no fire instructions ? 
why have the staircases not been improved since my accident ? 
why are no @-@ smoking areas not enforced ? 
it seems absolutely disgraceful that we pass legislation and do not adhere to it ourselves . 
Mrs Lynne , you are quite right and I shall check whether this has actually not been done . 
I shall also refer the matter to the College of Quaestors , and I am certain that they will be keen to ensure that we comply with the regulations we ourselves vote on . 
Madam President , Mrs Díez González and I had tabled questions on certain opinions of the Vice @-@ President , Mrs de Palacio , which appeared in a Spanish newspaper . 
the competent services have not included them in the agenda on the grounds that they had been answered in a previous part @-@ session . 
I would ask that they reconsider , since this is not the case . 
the questions answered previously referred to Mrs de Palacio ' s intervention , on another occasion , and not to these comments which appeared in the ABC newspaper on 18 November . 
Mr Berenguer Fuster , we shall check all this . 
I admit that , at present , the matter seems to be somewhat confused . 
we shall therefore look into it properly to ensure that everything is as it should be . 
Madam President , I should like to know if there will be a clear message going out from Parliament this week about our discontent over today 's decision refusing to renew the arms embargo on Indonesia , considering that the vast majority in this Parliament have endorsed the arms embargo in Indonesia in the past ? 
today 's decision not to renew the embargo is extremely dangerous considering the situation there . 
so Parliament should send a message , since that is the wish of the vast majority . 
it is irresponsible of EU Member States to refuse to renew the embargo . 
as people have said , the situation there is extremely volatile . 
there is , in fact , a risk of a military coup in the future . 
we do not know what is happening . 
so why should EU arms producers profit at the expense of innocent people ? 
in any event , this question is not presently included among the requests for topical and urgent debate on Thursday . 
agenda 
the next item is the verification of the final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 13 January pursuant to Rule 110 of the Rules of Procedure . 
no amendments have been proposed relating to Monday and Tuesday . 
relating to Wednesday : 
the Group of the Party of European Socialists requests that a Commission statement be included on its strategic objectives for the next five years and on the administrative reform of the Commission . 
I would like Mr Barón Crespo , who made the request , to speak to propose it . that is , if he so wishes , of course . 
then we shall follow the usual procedure , hearing one speaker in favour and one against . 
Madam President , the presentation of the Prodi Commission ' s political programme for the whole legislature was initially a proposal by the Group of the Party of European Socialists which was unanimously approved by the Conference of Presidents in September and which was also explicitly accepted by President Prodi , who reiterated his commitment in his inaugural speech . 
this commitment is important because the Commission is a body with a monopoly of initiative in accordance with the Treaties and , therefore , basically dictates this Parliament ' s political and legislative activity for the next five years . 
I would also like to point out , Madam President , that this Parliament voted to express its confidence in President Prodi during the previous legislature . it did so again during this legislature , in July , and then , in September , it voted once more to approve the whole Commission . 
there has therefore been enough time for the Commission to prepare its programme and for us to become familiar with it and explain it to our citizens . 
to this end , I would like to remind you of the resolution of 15 September , which recommended that the proposal be presented as soon as possible . 
the events of last week - which originated outside the Conference of Presidents , that Conference being used simply to corroborate and ratify decisions taken elsewhere - present us with a dilemma . either the Commission is not ready to present this programme , in which case it should clarify it . 
according to its President , it is in a position to do so . 
given that the Commission is represented by Vice @-@ President de Palacio , I believe that , before voting , it would help if the Commission could let us know how ready it is to present this programme , as agreed . alternatively , Parliament is not ready to examine this programme , as some appear to be suggesting . 
my Group believes that since a parliament is meant to listen , debate and reflect , there can be no justification whatsoever for this delay and we believe that , if the Commission is ready to do so , we still have time to re @-@ establish the original agreement between Parliament and the Commission and proceed in a manner which fulfils our duty to our fellow citizens . 
therefore , Madam President , I would ask you to request that the Commission express its opinion on this issue and that we then proceed to the vote . 
( applause from the PSE Group ) 
Madam President , I would like to make it very clear that , above all , the Commission has absolute respect for the decisions of this Parliament and , amongst those , the decision establishing its agenda . 
we therefore respect whatever Parliament may decide . 
but I would also like to make it very clear that President Prodi made a commitment to this Parliament to introduce a new debate , as Mr Barón Crespo has reminded us , which would be in addition to the annual debate on the Commission ' s legislative programme , on the broad areas of action for the next five years , that is to say , for this legislature . 
Madam President , I would like to say that the agreement reached in September distinguished this debate from the annual presentation of the Commission ' s legislative programme . 
I would also like to say that the Commission is prepared and ready to hold this debate whenever it is convenient and that we were ready to do so this week as we had agreed originally , on the basis that it would be presented the day before in a speech to parliamentary groups . 
therefore , Madam President , I would like to repeat that the Commission has debated the action plan for the next five years and , when Parliament decides , - this week if that is the decision - we are prepared to come and explain the programme for the next five years and , next month , the programme for 2000 , which is what we fully agreed upon . 
I propose that we vote on the request of the Group of the Party of European Socialists that the Commission statement on its strategic objectives should be reinstated . 
( Parliament rejected the request ) President . 
still on the subject of Wednesday ' s sitting , I have another proposal regarding the oral question on capital tax . 
the PPE @-@ DE Group is requesting that this item be taken off the agenda . 
is there a member who wishes to speak on behalf of this Group to propose this ? 
Madam President , I can hear a ripple of laughter from the Socialists . 
I was told that large sections of the Socialist Group were also keen to have this item taken off the agenda , because at the vote in the Conference of Presidents no vote was received from the working group of Members of the Socialist Group responsible for this matter . 
I do not know whether this information is correct , but the PPE @-@ DE Group would , in any case , be grateful if this item were removed because Parliament has addressed this issue several times already . 
decisions have also been adopted against a tax of this kind . 
that is why my Group moves that this item be taken off the agenda . 
thank you , Mr Poettering . 
we shall now hear Mr Wurtz speaking against this request . 
Madam President , I would firstly like to point out Mr Poettering ' s lack of logic . he has just been preaching to the Group of the Party of European Socialists because they went back on a decision taken in a perfectly clear manner at the Conference of Presidents , and now he is doing just the same . 
we discussed that matter and we were unanimous , with the exception of the PPE and ELDR Groups . as my fellow chairmen will recall , I even mentioned that it was not a matter of knowing whether one was for or against the Tobin tax , but of whether one dared to hear what the Commission and the Council thought of it . 
it is not a lot to ask . 
I therefore repeat the proposal that this oral question to the Commission and the Council should be retained so that we can find out , once and for all , the positions of these two bodies regarding the proposal which is relatively modest but which would give a clear message to public opinion , particularly after the tide of feeling generated by the failure of the Seattle Conference . 
we shall proceed to vote on the PPE @-@ DE Group ' s request that the oral question regarding the capital tax be withdrawn from the agenda . 
( Parliament rejected the request , with 164 votes for , 166 votes against and 7 abstentions ) 
Madam President , I would like to thank Mr Poettering for advertising this debate . 
thank you very much . 
Madam President , has my vote been counted ? I was unable to vote electronically , since I do not have a card . 
my vote was " in favour " . 
Madam President , the Presidency has already declared the result of the vote . 
there is no room for amendments . 
Madam President , in the earlier vote - and I will abide by your ruling on this matter - on the question of the strategic plan of the Commission I indicated that I would like to speak in advance of the vote on behalf of my Group . 
that did not happen . 
I would appreciate it if , on the close of this item of business , I might be allowed to give an explanation of vote on behalf of my Group . 
this is an important matter . 
it would be useful for the record of the House to state how people perceive what we have just done in the light of their own political analysis . 
Madam President , I do not wish to reopen the debate , but I had also asked for the floor , to comment on Mr Barón Crespo 's motion . 
you did not call me either . 
I regret this , but the vote has already been taken and the decision is made so let us leave the matter there . 
I am terribly sorry , Mr Hänsch and Mr Cox . I did not see you asking to speak . 
even so , I think the positions are quite clear and they shall be entered in the Minutes . 
when we adopt the Minutes for today ' s sitting tomorrow , then any Members who think the positions have not been explained clearly enough may ask for amendments . 
this seems to me to be a workable solution . 
of course , the Minutes for tomorrow ' s sitting will take into account any additional explanations . 
I think this is a better solution than proceeding now to extremely time @-@ consuming explanations of votes . 
Mr Cox , Mr Hänsch , would this be acceptable to you ? 
Madam President , if the vote records correctly how my Group voted I shall not , and cannot , object to that . 
if your ruling is that I cannot give an explanation of vote , I accept that but with reservations . 
safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods 
Commissioner , Madam President , ladies and gentlemen , I can be quite frank in saying that I welcome the Council 's common position on harmonising the training of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road , rail or inland waterway . 
firstly , we needed to take action on a formal level in order to meet the requirements of Directive 96 / 35 / EC , which obliges the Member States to appoint safety advisers and to organise the training , instruction and examination of these people but does not explain this explicitly . 
secondly , by adopting this directive we achieve a ) an increase in safety when dangerous goods are both transported and transhipped ; b ) a reduction in distortions of competition resulting from wide variations in national training structures and training costs and c ) equal opportunities for safety advisers on the European labour market . 
thirdly , this directive , as it currently stands in the common position , guarantees - in particular because it confines itself exclusively to minimum standards - a high degree of flexibility and modest regulation by the European Union ; by adopting it we contribute to the Member States ' bearing a high level of individual responsibility . 
all of this is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and is therefore to be greatly welcomed . 
our amendments from the first reading have , I believe , been taken into account very satisfactorily . 
they have either been accepted or transposed with no change in the substance , or they have been rejected because the corresponding European arrangements have not been included , for example a system of penalties for violations of the rules or a complex classification structure for related groups of questions . 
the one unanimously adopted amendment of the Committee on Regional Policy and Transport , which concerns the timetable for implementing the directive , is something which I would urge you to support . 
by not setting a specific date for the Member States to implement the directive and instead giving them a period of three months after its entry into force , we are introducing a flexibility clause which ensures that the directive will be implemented without delay . 
I would urge you to endorse this . 
as an Austrian , I still have a vivid memory , as , I believe , we all do , of the catastrophe which cost so many human lives last year in the Tauern Tunnel , where subsequent work to rebuild the parts of the tunnel which had been destroyed in this fire continued for many months at huge expense . 
the renovation project , which lasted for months , cut off this important route between the north and south of Europe . 
the traffic which had to be diverted because of this stretched the patience of many thousands of people in the EU to the limit . 
in fact , all hell broke loose in some municipalities in my province . 
prevention has to be our answer to disasters of this kind and this draft directive is an important step towards well @-@ trained safety advisers being available , so that the right action is taken in good time . 
all the same , we must not content ourselves with enacting European law to ensure greater safety . 
we also need to follow this up and make sure that our rules are transposed by the Member States in good time and - even more importantly - we need to ensure that they are also applied afterwards . 
please let this not be yet another sector where we subsequently have to lament the lack of enforcement . 
I should like to address one final point . we must not content ourselves with sealing another hole in the safety net and shutting our eyes to the fact that , where transport safety in Europe is concerned , there is still much more to be done . 
in this context , I should like to make a request and ask the Commissioner responsible , who is with us here today , to table an appropriate text as soon as possible with a view to continuing to make it safer for traffic to transit tunnels in the future , so that we in Europe do not have to experience any more such disasters on this scale . 
Madam President , first of all I should like to thank Mr Koch for his report which has , at its heart , the issue of transport safety . 
the report looks at the issue of harmonising the examination requirements for safety advisors working in the areas of transportation of dangerous goods by road , rail and inland waterway . 
I congratulate him on his excellent report . 
the rapporteur has pointed out to the House that in its common position the Council has accepted six of Parliament 's ten amendments put forward at first reading and that the substance of Parliament 's other amendments has been retained . 
my Group will therefore support the common position and looks forward to the enactment of the legislation which will provide us with yet another tool in our fight to make transport in the European Union as safe as possible . 
when it comes to safety my Group will always support any initiatives to improve transport safety . 
we still have a lot of work to do in this area as recent events have proved . 
Madam President , I would like to make a few comments . 
I would like , first of all , to thank the rapporteur for his exceptionally accurate and technical work on the report and , secondly , the Commission for the proposal it has submitted . 
we are concerned here with the harmonisation of examination requirements but also , in fact , with minimum requirements . 
this is a pity , in a sense . 
needless to say , safety on roads , railways and inland waterways is of key importance and , given the international nature of these types of transport , training for safety advisors should also be harmonised , therefore , as well as the requirements of the new ADR , for example , which is under way . 
this is important , but so is enforcement and there are , of course , a number of reasons why we need to pay particular attention to this . 
just think of the road accidents which have occurred over recent years , for example in Belgium , the Netherlands and a number of other countries where lorries carrying dangerous goods continued to drive in foggy conditions when really they should have pulled off the road instead . 
or ships from Eastern Europe which moor adjacent to ships over here , with all the obvious risks that this entails . 
furthermore , it has transpired that research in the ports in Belgium , Finland , but also in Japan has shown that 50 % of containers with partially dangerous cargo are not delivered correctly for shipment . 
in short , the issue is an important one . 
if we look at the situation where safety advisers are concerned , in a number of countries it is compulsory to employ such safety advisers in companies as from 1 January of this year . 
there will be major problems with enforcing this rule at present , especially with smaller companies , as these cannot afford safety advisors . 
these smaller companies either dispose of their cargo or mix it with other cargo , which causes problems . 
it is therefore also being requested that ISO 9002 certificates possibly include the finer details of these activities in the form of annual reports and company analyses . 
the work is done . all that remains is the business of enforcement . 
I would like to mention one final point . 
with regard to enforcement , proper agreements must also be concluded with the Eastern European countries because they will not enter into treaties which deal with this matter until 1 July 2001 , that is to say in eighteen months ' time . 
this gives them a competitive edge for the interim period . 
this is not in itself anything dreadful , but we should prioritise particularly the safety aspects for goods transported by road , rail and inland waterways and incorporate these , as part of the acquis communautaire , as soon as possible and present them to the acceding states . 
Madam President , the importance of transport safety is highlighted on a regular basis in this Parliament and rightly so . 
the ever increasing volume of goods passing through Europe entails all kinds of risks , known and unknown , for employees and the social environment . 
those having to deal with these risks should therefore meet stringent requirements . 
the relevant standards which have been laid down in another Directive , 95 / 35 / EC , seem sufficiently adequate to advise people in a responsible manner on the organisation of the transport of dangerous goods . 
I am very pleased that agreement has also been reached with the Council on minimum standards regarding examinations , although I would have preferred it if uniform , set standards and modules had been established , so that certificates would be of equal value internationally . 
this , however , does not seem feasible . 
finally , the amendment tabled by the rapporteur is perfectly logical and I can , therefore , give it my wholehearted support . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I should first like to congratulate Mr Koch on his reports which , though technical , are nonetheless of very great significance for safety . 
I should like to make just a few comments . 
firstly , I should like to ask the Commissioner - and I am convinced that my request will fall on fertile ground - to ensure that more attention is paid to the issue of safety , be it on the roads , on the waterways or at sea . 
considering that it is only today that we are dealing with a Commission proposal first made on 19 March 1998 , even though Parliament responded relatively quickly , this time lag is a little too long . 
this is not just the fault of the Commission , but I believe that we need to take action more quickly so as to achieve harmonisation in this area as well . 
my second point has already been mentioned : it concerns the minimum standards . 
in principle , I believe that in many cases where transport is concerned we should be working towards increased flexibility and country @-@ specific rules . 
however , when it comes to safety , I am rather sceptical because safety in Sweden , for example , is in principle no different from safety in Germany , Italy or Austria . 
I can live with these minimum standards , but I would ask the Commission to monitor the situation very carefully . 
should flexibility of this kind result in there being inadequate rules in some countries then we should work towards greater harmonisation . 
my third point has also been mentioned already . as you know , like Mr Rack , I come from a transit country , where this issue plays a particularly important role . 
we do not want to make the conditions of competition worse for some countries unilaterally and improve them for countries such as Austria or other transit countries . 
but I believe that we should do all we can to keep the transport of dangerous goods to a minimum , in all countries , whether they are transit countries or not . 
Mr President , I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur , Mr Koch , on his magnificent work and his positive cooperation with the Commission with regard to improving the texts and presenting this report and this proposal ; in the end there is only one amendment on the requirements for the aptitude examination for safety advisers in the transport of dangerous goods by road , rail or inland waterway . 
we understand that it is important that the two institutions - Parliament and Commission - cooperate and work together and that the current cooperation with the Committee on Regional Policy , and in particular the transport group , is magnificent . 
the common position includes practically all of the amendments accepted by the Commission and harmonises the minimum examination requirements for safety advisers and , at second reading , we can accept the amendment on the proposed date , which is much more realistic than the one originally suggested by the Commission , bearing in mind that we have now spent several years debating this question . 
very briefly , I would like to thank the various Members for their interventions and to tell you that safety is one of the Commission ' s priorities in the field of transport . 
as Mr Simpson has said very correctly , this is a process which we can never take for granted or regard as having come to an end . 
the process of increasing safety margins and safety guarantees in transport is a process which must be improved day by day . 
in this regard , I would also like to refer very briefly to the problems of the tunnels , which Messrs Rack and Swoboda have referred to , which , in the case of Austria , is doubtless a very sensitive issue , and great effort should be made to improve their safety . 
in one of the worst accidents to have occurred recently , the goods being transported were not dangerous in themselves . 
margarine and a few kilos of paint which , in principle , do not present risks , led to a genuine disaster . 
therefore , we will have to see how the requirements guaranteeing the maximum degree of safety can be further improved . 
finally , I would like to say that we have to consider safety in all types of transport . 
this week we will be holding a debate here on the safety of sea transport , in light of the Erika disaster , and in the course of this year we will have to discuss our objectives in terms of the safety of air transport . 
but I would like to say that safety is a priority objective for the Commission . 
as I will say in the debate on the Erika disaster , we do not wait until there is a disaster to deal with the question of safety , but we work on it even when there are no such circumstances , which simply serve to demonstrate the urgency for an effective response to this type of problem . 
I would like to repeat my appreciation to all the speakers and especially to the rapporteur , Mr Koch . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. 
transport of dangerous goods by road 
delays in the CEN ' s work are now making it difficult to apply this very directive . 
in particular , annexes cannot be adapted to take account of technical and industrial developments . 
I regret this since we are having to take action because others have not done their job . 
in this respect , I accept this proposal to amend Directive 94 / 55 / EC which has been tabled for discussion today . 
should the European Union fail to take action , then Member States would be obliged to amend their national legislation for a very brief period , until the CEN completes its work , which would cause unnecessary cost and uncertainty . 
the amendment to the directive on today 's agenda does not therefore affect the existing harmonisation of the transport of dangerous goods in the Community . 
it merely prolongs transitional rules by postponing deadlines , deletes provisions which are no longer applicable , and lays down the procedures for a ) carrying out the ad hoc transportation of dangerous goods and b ) enacting less stringent national regulations , in particular for the transport of very small amounts of dangerous goods within strictly defined local areas . 
the amendment to the directive is consequently in full accordance with the principle of subsidiarity ; the Member States obtain more powers . 
the Commission decides whether the Member States may impose certain rules of their own . 
in so doing , it is supported by a committee of experts on the transport of dangerous goods under the regulatory procedure . 
the procedures for the exercise of these implementing powers conferred on the Commission were laid down afresh in the Council Decision of June 1999 . 
the proposal to be discussed today , to amend the directive on the transport of dangerous goods by road , dates from May 1999 , however , and could not therefore take account of the latest comitology procedure . 
two of the amendments tabled and adopted unanimously by the committee relate precisely to this amended comitology procedure . 
we would like to ensure that there is a reference to this as early as the recitals and that the period within which the Council has to make a decision - which is not clearly worded - is set at a maximum of three months . 
in addition , the need for greater transparency has been pointed out . 
a further amendment allows the Member States to impose more stringent requirements , in particular for vacuum tanks , if work is done or goods are transported as a priority in temperatures well below -20ºC . 
this is in the special interest of northern European regions . 
a final amendment is intended to ensure that tanks and tankers put into service between 1 January 1997 and the entry into force of this directive may continue to be used provided that they have been constructed and maintained in accordance with it . 
I do realise that this is only a small step towards increased transport safety , but I would ask you to endorse this report . 
Mr President , colleagues , a happy new year and millennium to you all . 
I am speaking for the first time in this plenary part @-@ session , so this is quite exciting for me , a little like first love , although that did last longer than two minutes . 
I would like to briefly comment on the Commission ' s proposal to amend the directive on the transport of dangerous goods by road . 
it is good that this directive should be established now , as , otherwise , Member States would have to amend their national acts for a very short time , a period of transition , which would again mean unnecessary costs and which would once more increase concern with regard to EU bureaucracy . 
the Commission ' s proposal , however , does not take account of all the facts , such as the cold climate that prevails in the northern regions . 
consequently , I have tabled some amendments to Mr Koch ' s intrinsically excellent report , which have been adopted by our committee . 
my amendments concern the frost @-@ resistance ratings for tankers carrying these dangerous goods . 
according to the Commission ' s proposal -20ºC would have been sufficient . on the shores of the Mediterranean , it is hard to imagine that in Lapland temperatures can fall considerably lower than that . 
there is support for the EU in Lapland also , so let us remember them . 
I have thus proposed that the frost rating be lowered to -40ºC . 
this would be necessary to keep safety standards at the level they were in northern regions previously . 
I hope my proposal will be taken into consideration in tomorrow ' s vote . 
Mr President , with your permission I should like to begin by expressing my admiration for the way in which you executed the quick changeover of the chairmanship just now during the debate . 
I thought that it was quite superb . 
on the subject at hand , I think that the people of Europe must be able to be confident that the goods - however dangerous they are - which are transported on Europe 's roads , railways , and so on are as safe as possible . 
this directive is a contribution to this . 
what we are doing today is essentially a nuisance . 
the rapporteur , Mr Koch , to whom we express our thanks for the work which he has done on this , has already pointed out that basically everything could have been somewhat more advanced had it not been for the inactivity on the part of the CEN , which has been very dilatory in drawing up and adapting the directive . 
that is why we can only hope - and we should resolve all of this this week - that , in 2001 , we will finally have Community regulations for the transport of dangerous goods by road so that we have a degree of legal certainty here and also so that our roads are a good deal safer . 
Mr President , the report we are discussing here does not , in itself , entail any major changes . 
most of the proposed amendments are of a purely technical nature . 
it is nonetheless worth emphasising that , each time we make this type of decision , it is good from a broad environmental perspective and it is beneficial because it creates better prior conditions for exploiting the possibilities of the internal market . 
very large quantities of dangerous goods are transported around the EU , both on roads and railways and by sea . 
this makes it necessary to have proper rules governing transport of this kind . 
in area after area , we are now obtaining common minimum regulations for the Member States . 
this is extraordinarily positive , and there is cause to thank the rapporteur , Mr Koch , for the work he has put in on this issue . 
this is also important where the prerequisites for the internal market are concerned . 
if we are to get a common transport market genuinely up and running , it is important that we should not only have regulations but that these regulations should also , as far as possible , apply to every country . 
I should like to conclude by commenting on a third matter which is also of significance , namely an amendment tabled by Member of Parliament , Mr Ari Vatanen . 
in many ways , the prerequisites differ from one Member State to another . 
by approving this amendment , we take account of the fact that it can be very cold in the northern parts of the European Union . 
this makes it necessary to also take account of the ways in which materials and packaging are affected by cold of this kind . 
it is good that , in establishing the present regulations , we can also be flexible . 
I hope that the Commission is able to accept the present amendment . 
Mr President , I would like to thank not only Mr Koch , but also the Vice @-@ President of the Commission for the clear and unambiguous way in which they have declared their support for safety in the transport sector and acknowledged it as a priority . 
the reason Mr Koch produced his sound report was because the work in the CEN and within the United Nations Economic Commission was proceeding none too expeditiously . 
I would like to ask the Vice @-@ President if she is in a position to tell us today what the state of play is with regard to the efforts towards harmonisation being made by these two organisations , and whether the EU is in a position to hasten these harmonisation efforts , in accordance with principles that are as simple as possible . 
for one thing is clear : even if we come to an excellent arrangement within the European Union , traffic does not stop at our borders , it goes beyond them . 
hence there is certainly every reason to introduce more far @-@ reaching regional provisions . 
if the Commissioner is unable to do so today then would she be prepared to inform the committee in writing of how matters stand and what stage negotiations between the CEN and the Economic Commission are at ? 
Mr President , I would once again like to congratulate Mr Koch on his magnificent work on this other report , which in a way supplements the debate which we held in October on rail transport . 
we all regret that the European Committee for Standardisation ( CEN ) has not been able , in the required time , to carry out the amendment of the provisions necessary for the required harmonisation within the European Union . 
this debate and the amendment of the directive currently in force allow us to incorporate differentiating elements which demonstrate the diversity of this Europe of ours . 
a moment ago , Mr Vatanen spoke to us of lower temperatures , not of 20 degrees below zero , but of 40 degrees below zero . 
of course , we accept that amendment - it is absolutely right - and I believe that we should incorporate specific circumstances which demonstrate the climatic diversity of the European Union , which sometimes take the form of specifics and of concrete requirements for the establishment of standards and characterisations of a technical nature . 
I would like to say , with regard to Mr Swoboda ' s comments on the activity of the CEN , that we are urging them to speed up their work as much as possible because it would be terrible if , despite the new deadline , we were to find ourselves after a year and a bit with the same difficulties because their work has not been concluded . 
lastly , Mr President , the basic problems justifying this amendment of the directive have been pointed out . we have referred to the delay by the CEN , the amendment of certain provisions , the consistency between the text of the directive and the content of the annexes and the need to for it to be more specific . 
the Commission accepts all of the contributions of the parliamentary committee and the rapporteur , Mr Koch , which are contained in the various amendments , specifically four . 
we therefore accept the four amendments which have been proposed . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. 
structural Funds - Cohesion Fund coordination 
Mr President , it is particularly pleasing for me to make my first speech in the European Parliament on what is regarded as the most important issue within that part of the United Kingdom that I represent in this Parliament , namely Wales . 
a major part of Wales , as you know , has been granted Objective 1 status under the Structural Funds programme . 
it is quite clear that many people within Wales are looking to the European Structural Funds programme to alleviate some of the great difficulties that we undoubtedly face . 
we have seen poverty growing in Wales ; and growing still further since 1997 . 
we have seen the gap between rich and poor widen . 
we are looking , therefore , within the Structural Funds programme not just to see industrial restructuring but also to see a wider improvement in the whole of the economic base within the Principality . 
what is , however , deeply damaging for us is the belief that in some way the granting of Structural Funds assistance is something that has been , in a sense , a success of the government . 
it is sadly only a recognition of the very great difficulties that Wales faces . 
that is why I want to highlight some of the issues that I believe the Commission must have at the forefront . 
we look to the Commission to deal with points in relation to additionality . 
we are dissatisfied with the fact that those figures seem to have been in some way hidden within UK figures . 
we look to the Commission also to ensure that there is matched funding for projects . 
we look to it to challenge the UK Government , to ensure that the private sector , which surely must be providing the major impetus for Structural Funds expenditure , is involved in the planning stage . 
finally , we ask that the Commission ensures that Structural Fund monies are spent in a way which is transparent . 
too much of what takes place within this Parliament is not transparent . 
this is one area in which I believe the Commission can be a very great friend to Wales . 
Mr President , our committee views these issues very differently and , to start , I will speak from the point of view of research . 
this will be possible with action on the part of governments , and such decentralisation of higher education will be an unquestionably useful policy in evening out development . 
another matter we would like to address , specifically from the point of view of industrial policy , is that we would have liked the Commission to pay more attention to the effects of services , electronic commerce and the growing use of the Internet , when they were planning the coordination of Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds . 
poverty and wealth used to depend more on means of livelihood . 
the rich areas were those where there were jobs in industry , but today those areas might have become a burden , and they may well be poor , meaning we also have to invest in new sectors of industry such as electronic production , as I might call it , and the production of services , because they are the industries of the future . 
in my opinion the committee drafting the report has not taken sufficient account of this , so on behalf of the Committee on Industry , External Trade , Research and Energy , I would draw the Commission ' s attention to this issue . 
Mr President , I would very much like to thank Mrs Schroedter for the work she has done on this and to explain to colleagues that I am speaking for my colleague , Mrs Flautre , who followed this for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs but who is unfortunately ill . 
I would like to draw people 's attention to Amendments Nos 1 and 2 which were agreed by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs but not accepted by the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism . 
these amendments deal with the social economy and the need to provide social risk capital and support financially local schemes to develop employment opportunities and strengthen social cohesion . 
in the past , this Parliament has viewed the social economy as an important potential provider of employment . 
these amendments also fit in with this Parliament 's view that social exclusion is a serious issue needing constructive action . 
we hope that those considering rejection of these amendments have very powerful reasons to offer to both Parliament and their citizens who are seeking employment . 
in her report , Mrs Flautre also drew attention to an area where coordination is sorely lacking , yet desperately needed . 
the Commission proposals refer to the four pillars of employment strategy and the five fields of action of the European Social Fund . 
but the lack of specific guidelines here is particularly to be regretted , as the idea of linking Social Fund assistance to the employment strategy will be put into effect for the first time during the 2000 @-@ 2006 programme . 
it could be said that the omission gives the impression that the Commission too has no idea how to provide maximum coordination between European Social Fund assistance , which is subject to review after three and a half years , and the Member States ' annual national plans for employment . 
we hope that the Commission can reassure us that this was an oversight which is now being dealt with constructively . 
Mr President , Commissioner , the proposal presented by the Commission , in accordance with its mandate , is a reasonable starting point for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development . 
I would like to point out , however , that this starting point indicates to us the challenges which face us : maintaining a population in rural areas , given the changes taking place in all types of economic activity owing to agriculture ' s increasing lack of importance amongst the various sources of income for rural society . 
this , as well as the deficiencies in the networks of infrastructures and services and a generally very low level of employment , which furthermore is seasonal and lacks diversity , exacerbates the exodus from rural areas . 
the consequences do not inspire hope . 
it is the young people who are disappearing , who are getting an education and finding work outside of the rural areas , all of which has an unfavourable effect on those areas . 
this lack of infrastructure is also an obstacle to the establishment of companies and the creation of jobs . 
we have to remember that rural areas represent almost four fifths of the territory of the European Union . 
agriculture only provides 5.5 % of employment in the Union . 
furthermore , three quarters of our farm workers are part @-@ time and require supplements to their incomes . 
for this reason , one of the most important and essential objectives which we should set in the European Union is to make efforts to create new jobs in rural areas , outside of the agricultural sector , in sectors such as rural tourism , sport , culture , heritage conservation , the conversion of businesses , new technologies , services , etc . 
however , even though the role of agriculture is not exclusive , it is still essential , not only to prevent economic and social disintegration and the creation of ghost towns , but also because farmers play a fundamental role in managing the land , in preserving biodiversity and in protecting the environment . 
therefore , we support the establishment of an agricultural and rural development policy which is consistent with the objectives we have set . we want rural areas , at the dawn of the 21st century , to be competitive and multi @-@ functional , both with regard to agriculture and with regard to opening up to the diversity of non @-@ agricultural activities . 
it is important to prioritise general criteria for land planning and demographic equilibrium , and to bear in mind the conclusions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the five fundamental issues , which have been only partly taken up by the Committee on Transport , Regional Policy and Tourism in its points 16 and 17 . 
in conclusion , I would ask the Commission to take these five points into account when establishing the conclusions on the four pillars because I believe that , for the European Union , maintaining the population in rural areas must be one of the priority objectives . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Schroedter , the rapporteur , for her work . 
I think that this work has been carried out extremely well . 
I would also like to thank her for her willingness to enter into dialogue with the other political groups when compromise formulas have needed to be reached in the face of this avalanche of amendments - and perhaps there are more of them than we expected - but which genuinely reflect the importance of the report we are now discussing . 
we feel that it is important that the Commission takes account of the conclusions adopted by this Parliament , at least in spirit , because at this stage , it might seem as though what we are doing here is a useless exercise , and nothing but hot air . 
the truth of the matter though is that we believe - and this is also shown in the way the conclusions have been drafted - that the Commission must take account of what is adopted by this Parliament , particularly in the face of an interim revision of these directives . 
in order to achieve a more rapid and efficient boost for attaining these objectives , we think that those who generate employment , the real entrepreneurs and those who really guarantee new sources of employment , that is , businesspeople , must participate in this initiative . 
small and medium @-@ sized businesses , above all , need to take part in the distribution of these funds . 
if they do not , if businesspeople feel marginalised , if entrepreneurs cannot take part , not only in managing but also in receiving these funds , we will have missed an opportunity to attain our objectives more rapidly . 
also , in order to attain our objectives , to overcome the disparities between regions and to seek out sources of employment , it is crucial to give our complete support to new technologies , to transport and communications networks and to renewable energies . 
all of this must be done - I repeat - with the participation of private business , which , by uniting its efforts with those of public administrations , but complementing them , never obstructing or excluding them , will lead to the creation of wealth in society and of jobs . 
Mr President , it is incumbent upon me to remind my colleague , Mr Evans , of why Wales actually achieved Objective 1 status . it was because of the discredited policies of his own Conservative Party . 
let me also remind him that when his party leader , Mr Hague , was Secretary of State for Wales , he broke every rule in the book on additionality which led to a stern letter from Commissioner Wulf @-@ Mathies regarding regulatory requirements . 
I can tell you that the British Government is aware of its regulatory requirements on Objective 1 additionality . I suggest Mr Evans goes back and reads the regulation . 
my Group has made extensive amendments to both reports up for debate today . 
I want to focus our minds on the essential role of the guidelines . 
the objective is to provide a framework and tool to support and enhance economic regeneration , to get the most effective use of resources in the widest partnership and to put these regions back on the road to recovery and sustainable development so that eventually they come off the regional life @-@ support machine . 
it is important to identify the skills and potential of our regions in the hi @-@ tech sector . 
it is particularly important in the light of reports in the media that Europe is rapidly losing ground to the US in the hi @-@ tech growth industries of the future . 
the operation of the previous round of programmes is also very instructive in telling us what guidelines should not be about . 
they should not be about creating additional layers of bureaucracy and red tape . 
they should not be about shifting priorities and policies halfway through project development , resulting in inevitable delays and underspends , particularly in the light of the new budgetary requirement . 
the implementation and operation of the guidelines cannot be left to the personal interpretation of one or other desk officer , either in the Commission or in the civil service . 
there must be an internal coherence in the Commission directorate , while respecting the specific local and regional aspects of Commission programmes . 
the conclusion is that we must make the case for guidelines to be broad , indicative and flexible to assist our programme managers and fund @-@ users and to get the maximum potential out of our new fields of regeneration . 
if we can inject a spirit of entrepreneurial activity into our poor and structurally weak regions we will eventually get them back onto the road of attracting substantial investor confidence , which will be the key to future success . 
this is how we are going to judge the success of these guidelines : whether EU regional policy with a good , solid , enabling guideline , can open up new opportunities and allow our poor and structurally weak regions to play their full part in contributing to the growth and prosperity of the EU . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I would like to thank Mrs Schroedter for an excellent report . 
she has gone into the issue in some depth and in the committee debate she took account of many of the amendments that have been tabled regarding this report . 
the rapporteur has also quite rightly stated that Parliament was not heard in time regarding the guidelines . 
we are badly behind now in this matter . 
hopefully , the stands Parliament has taken will help , however , in the mid @-@ term appraisal of the programmes and in their practical implementation . 
for the time , the report grew too large when it was being debated . 
it contained details and issues that had already been raised in previous reports . 
at this stage it is more important to concentrate on assessing how we can use this process to steer Union regional policy , bearing in mind that the aim is to reduce regional inequality . 
our Group emphasises the importance of the principle of subsidiarity , the responsibility of Member States and the role of local players in drafting and implementing programmes . 
it is especially important to get SMEs involved in the planning and implementation of programmes . 
our Group also considers it important to take greater account of remote and peripheral areas and wishes to increase interaction between towns and rural areas . 
we oppose the excessive control the central administration of the Union and its Member States exercises and we are calling for a reduction in the bureaucracy that has taken root in the drafting and implementation of programmes . 
projects implemented with support from the Union have had their effect watered down all too often by slow decision making and complicated administrative processes . 
funds have often been granted for projects which have had no lasting benefit for the area concerned . 
projects have to be carried out more efficiently , more flexibly and they have to be made more productive . 
while the report was being prepared , it was interesting to discuss the Union ' s regional policy in general . 
for us new members , it was the first time , and this was a very interesting process . 
this report is very good and our Group supports it . 
Mr President , Commissioner , as proof that this Parliament has not yet overcome its role as a consultative and subordinate institution , the excellent report by a fellow member of my Group , Elisabeth Schroedter , has not been able to reach plenary sitting because the plans for regional development for the period 2000 @-@ 2006 for Objective 1 regions have been sitting in the Commission ' s offices for several months . 
Mr President , we should not forget that the main , strategic objective of the Structural and Cohesion Funds and of their coordination is to achieve economic and social cohesion . 
we are obliged to participate in drafting directives and also in assessing their results . 
we are obliged to do so because we are the representatives of the citizens in a Europe of Citizens and not just in a Europe of States and of Regions . 
we feel that the Funds are a necessary but insufficient condition for achieving economic and social cohesion . 
we might be mistaken in using the gross domestic product per inhabitant as the sole indicator . 
some speakers have already mentioned unemployment and the fall in population . 
we will have to study several indicators , which will enable us to see the current state of regional societies that are in a worse situation than others , and how they are evolving . 
it is clear from some of the reports that have been presented to Parliament ' s plenary sitting today that Europe ' s 25 most prosperous regions enjoy a level of unemployment which is five times lower than in the 25 least prosperous regions . 
this fact means that the European Parliament , the Commissioner and the Commission must act decisively and strategically . 
I agree that the European Parliament did not have the opportunity - or that it was not given the opportunity , as we had reached the end of the parliamentary term - to discuss the directives . 
I do not think , however , that this report has come too late . 
we need to consider it together , so that the new Objective 1 programmes and the plans for regional development , which have been drafted before the directives come into force , can be submitted for revision and proper assessment . 
we all agree that we should ask that , halfway through these programmes , when the assessment of the directives is made , Parliament should be given an equally influential role on the grounds that we are the citizens ' representatives . 
our citizens cannot accept that the European Union takes decisions in a way that is , at least on the face of it , bureaucratic . 
they need to see the political dimension working , to see that officials accept their responsibilities and that there is communication with the citizens . 
this is what we are today asking the Commissioner for . 
I would like to think that , given his previous experience as a regional President , he will agree to propose indicators , and a strategy , which will favour economic and social cohesion and not just productivity . 
Mr President , I support the main proposals of the report concerning the administration of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the period 2000 @-@ 2006 and the main recommendations of the report which include the following : there must always be an integrated approach to the spending of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds . 
this means that there must be a comprehensive partnership between local authorities and national governments with regard to how these funds are to be spent . 
Member States are urged to attach greater importance to integrated strategies for revitalising relations between towns and rural areas . 
this latter point is of particular importance . 
while urban renewal in our cities is very important we must always strike a balance in our policies between promoting rural development and improving the lives of city dwellers . 
we do not want to build a Europe of cities alone . 
the Structural Funds have played a key role in the development both of urban and rural parts of peripheral countries , mainly through the upgrading of roads , water treatment and related transport networks . 
this process will continue in accordance with the financial spending guidelines laid down by the EU leaders at their Berlin Summit last year , which were supported by Parliament at its last May plenary part @-@ session . 
key EU programmes between 1989 , 1993 , 1994 and 1999 have certainly helped to improve the economic competitiveness of peripheral countries and Objective 1 regions within Europe . 
the key now is to consolidate and make permanent the progress made to date . 
this would ensure that the peripheral countries and the ultraperipheral regions , the poorer regions in Europe , are in a position to operate successfully within the new euro currency zone , as well as within an ever @-@ expanding internal market where the free movement of goods , persons , services and capital exist . 
in conclusion , while key infrastructure projects have been supported by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund , we should remember that the European Social Fund has played a very important role in helping the less well @-@ off in our society . 
the Social Fund has certainly improved our third @-@ level institutions , financed our post @-@ leaving certificate programmes and put in place comprehensive schemes to help combat youth and long @-@ term unemployment , assist early school leavers and promote higher standards of adult literacy . 
Mr President , on numerous occasions in the past I have disagreed with the rapporteur on her approach to regional policy issues . this time , however , I actually agree with her . 
whether or not this will encourage her to continue along the same path , I cannot say . nevertheless , I would like to commend her on her work . 
the second point I would like to make is that we would have preferred it if the guidelines had been added to the regulation in the form of an annex , as we and Mrs McCarthy , as rapporteurs for the general regulation , had asked . 
unfortunately , this did not happen . Mr Bernié is not to blame for this as it was a matter for the previous committee . 
I am raising the issue just to reiterate Parliament ' s position . 
thirdly , we broadly agree on the general guidelines provided they do not deviate from the comments we have made so far . 
they are particularly beneficial to the Member States , and I would particularly like to draw your attention to the emphasis the Commission has placed on the issues of sustainable development , job creation and , more particularly , on equal opportunities and transport issues . 
personally , I at least am totally in favour of the guidelines . 
as an islander , however , I would like to express my dissatisfaction at the lack of recognition of island development . 
this is not the first time that this issue has not been given the consideration it deserves . this has been an ongoing concern for the five years that I have been a Member of this Parliament , and I have raised the issue time and time again . 
Commissioner , we shall continue to raise the issue , as Article 158 , paragraph 1 , of the Treaty of Amsterdam provides for an integrated policy for islands . therefore , the Commission should address the issue once and for all . 
the time has come to implement the programmes , and so Member States should also assume their responsibilities and do their jobs properly . 
as for us in Parliament , I would like to remind you of the code of conduct between the Commission and Parliament which was signed in May . 
I am absolutely certain that this code will be observed and that Parliament will keep abreast of all the developments and details concerning the implementation of the programmes . 
Mr President , I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work . 
over the coming years , faced with the challenges of globalisation and eastward enlargement , Europe will , more than ever before , require appropriate detailed guidance on how to plan and revitalise its economy . 
to this end , Europe as a whole , and each Member State individually , will have to make optimum use of all available resources and capacities , including the Structural Funds . 
for this to be possible , what we need from the European Commission are not just good intentions , but clearer guidelines and a firm commitment to monitoring the way these resources are used by the Member States . 
for example , in recent years Italy has had problems in utilising the Structural Funds , mainly because of excessive bureaucracy , insufficient information and a lack of involvement of economic and social operators at local level . 
I will conclude , Mr President , by saying that the failure of the Commission ' s communication to focus on territorial pacts and , especially , methods of combating unemployment among women and young people , is cause for serious concern . 
Mr President , like my colleague Mr Evans , it is a particular pleasure to rise and make my first speech to this House on this very important issue , especially since I represent a part of the United Kingdom , the West Midlands , which has hitherto benefited from Objective 2 funding in particular . 
but the report before the House tonight is a prime example of how , if we are not very careful , we can produce very grandiose @-@ sounding ideas that lack the substance to make them relevant to the people who benefit directly from them . 
the report itself is well @-@ intentioned but , as so often when we deal with these issues , lacks clarity of purpose and a sound basis for operability . 
that is why I and my Group are proposing three key amendments and additions to the text , not to take anything away from the proposal , but to make it more relevant to those whom it is there to guide . 
I would like to explain our thinking here . 
firstly , we are concerned with the proper use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds . 
past experience dictates that , as the elected representatives of the European taxpayer , we should , and indeed must , demand financial probity and transparency in the disbursement and auditing of this money , hence our amendments and additions relate to achieving what are known as " value for money " indicators in the grant @-@ giving process . 
next , we all too often see vast sums of money being spent on projects whose outcomes will necessarily be unclear at the start of the programme period . 
but at the mid @-@ way point or end of that period there is no effective way of terminating the project if it has not proved successful . 
our additions therefore call for the provision of practical enforceable exit strategies so that not only can we have the requisite insurance against ongoing costs which are often loaded onto the taxpayer , but we also avoid the well @-@ rehearsed syndrome of throwing good money after bad . 
finally , we call for a change to the balance and method by which the funds are disbursed . 
there should be greater involvement of the private sector which will introduce financial reality as a perspective within the funding equation . 
also the type of project funded needs to be shifted away from small @-@ scale revenue @-@ based projects , which are hard to monitor , towards capital schemes where , in the majority of cases , the benefits are there for all to see . 
that way the much @-@ trumpeted need for transparency in the use of these funds and the temptation to draw unnecessarily in the longer term on the local tax base in areas where such projects are located will be diminished and the European Parliament will show how seriously it takes the need for such reform . 
I urge the House to support these changes . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I too would like to commend the rapporteur on her report , which is a meticulous and substantive piece of work . 
the European Union ' s structural and cohesion policies are , without doubt , essential tools for creating the right conditions with a view to tackling and reducing the levels of economic and social disparity between the regions . despite the steps taken thus far , these levels are still very high , and are unacceptably high as regards unemployment . 
these policy objectives can only be achieved through their careful coordination and organisation on the basis of well thought @-@ out and sensible guidelines . 
let us not forget that when these policies are effective , they also benefit European citizens by directly improving their quality of life . 
let us not forget either that greater consideration should be given to the islands and remote regions of the European Union because their geographical location is a hindrance to their economic and social development , unless of course the Commission is intending to build bridges or underwater tunnels linking them to the European mainland . 
in closing , I would like to point out that the structural policies as a whole require greater flexibility so that they can adapt to changing circumstances and thereby respond to the new challenges and opportunities of the new millennium , for which we all hope for the best . 
Mr President , Mrs Schroedter ' s report undoubtedly contains several important observations , and I would like to congratulate her on that . 
however , I feel that we should be a little more concerned about the actual direction and outcome of the Community ' s regional policy . 
quite briefly , structural policy does not ease the problem of mass unemployment in any way , rather it aggravates it . 
the agricultural economy and agricultural regions have been irreparably damaged by the existing regional policy , which has had dramatic consequences on employment levels in rural areas and on the living conditions of farmers , particularly in the South . 
regional disparities are becoming much more marked within the Member States . 
if we examine the data presented in the sixth periodic report , we will see that the last decade has witnessed a proliferation of regional disparities . 
little consideration , if any at all , has been given to the great problems facing the island regions of the Union whose shortcomings as regards infrastrucutres structure , transport , communication and energy has resulted in their gradual depopulation . 
the Union ' s economic and social policy is just as much to blame for that as its regional policy . 
a large section of the Union ' s population has strongly condemned this policy for being dangerous and anti grass @-@ roots . 
unfortunately , the new guidelines seem to be heading in the same direction and there are no signs that things will change once they have been implemented . 
Mr President , I would like to say a few words in order to highlight two points made in these reports which are of fundamental strategic importance to the way we see the Union . 
the first is the fundamental , central importance that we continue to give to the principle of economic and social cohesion . 
we are concerned to hear news that the Commission is taking this objective less seriously . 
we still feel that economic and social cohesion is one of the Union ' s fundamental objectives . 
secondly , I agree with what has already been said on the issue of the islands and I would also like to bring the outermost regions to your attention . 
in future , we would like to see greater ambition applied to the subject of the outermost regions such as , in my country , the islands of the Azores and Madeira . 
I would like to ask if the Commission is able to enlighten us on the reasons for the delay in the Commission ' s report on the outermost regions , which has been long awaited by Parliament ? 
Mr President , first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur , not least for being willing to include in the report the suggestions we made . 
Mr President , Commissioner , the guidelines are intended to help steer the Member States towards achieving the reform objectives contained in the programmes . 
however , contrary to their claim to provide guidance , the Commission ' s proposals in this respect are reminiscent to a far greater extent of a catalogue of possible measures within the scope of the various policy areas . 
nonetheless , their true purpose is to give direction and to set priorities . 
I am particularly in favour of a proposed amendment tabled by my Group to paragraph 10 , to ensure an appropriate level of private sector involvement in the planning and implementation of the projects . 
I should be very grateful , Mrs Schroedter , if you would actually include this proposed amendment in the part relating to subsidiarity in your positive deliberations . 
Mr President , Commissioner , in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs , we upheld unanimously the criterion that it was of strategic importance and a matter of priority to support the interventions of the Structural and Cohesion Funds which are working for a better opportunity for jobs for the unemployed and for equality between men and women . 
unfortunately , the excellent Schroedter report did not take account of this criterion , despite the fact that there is considerable evidence to show - as we shall see later in the Berend report - how , in fact , these funds are providing splendid assistance to the most backward regions in order to bridge the gulf that separates them from Europe ' s most highly @-@ developed regions . 
they are growing , but only in terms of GDP . 
they are increasing in competitiveness but they are not all experiencing an increase in wealth because there is no increase in employment and there are still differences in employment opportunities between regions . 
Commissioner , please read the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and treat it as a matter of priority , because this is our citizens ' greatest problem . 
please take account , in strategic terms , in the revision and in the allocation of reserves , of employment needs , because this , fundamentally is what the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds require . 
Mr President , it is important that the guidelines head in the right direction and that they guarantee the effectiveness of the programmes of the crucial seven @-@ year period 2000 @-@ 2006 so as to ensure sustainable development and job creation , particularly for women and young people , and ensure a balance is struck between economic and social policy and regional policy . 
it is particularly important to address those serious issues concerning urban areas , employment in rural areas , aid to agricultural regions and equal development opportunities for the islands of the European Union and for the Greek islands which , of course , comprise half of the islands of the Union , as stipulated in Article 158 of the Treaty . 
cohesion policy needs to be strengthened further because a Europe which totally disregards the standard of living in its regions can neither be reliable or viable . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. 
social and economic situation and development of the regions of the Union 
the next item is the debate on the report ( A5 @-@ 0107 / 1999 ) by Mr Berend , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union [ SEC ( 99 ) 0066 - C5 @-@ 0120 / 99 - 1999 / 2123 ( COS ) ] . 
Mr President , Commissioner , this sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union constitutes a milestone in the analysis of regional data and highlights the progress made in this area since the issue of the fifth periodic report . 
I consider , however , that the mention of any real convergence of average regional development levels in Europe offers a somewhat over @-@ simplified view of the situation and , unfortunately , this is often the message taken up in the press and in some speeches . 
the Commission report generally relativises this observation , particularly when it refers to the social and economic situation of some regions of the Union in which I have a special interest , by which I mean the French overseas departments and , more generally , the most remote regions . 
in this respect , I am pleased to see that the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism has adopted one of my amendments calling on the Commission to devote a specific chapter in its next report on cohesion to the special case of the most remote regions and , more specifically , to consideration of the impact of the measures shortly to be adopted under new Article 299 ( 2 ) of the Treaty of Amsterdam . 
finally , in my view , this sixth periodic report presents interesting arguments from the viewpoint of a real project for the balanced sustainable development of Europe , particularly when it outlines the importance of relations between the central areas of Europe and its more remote regions . 
even if the Commission is still reluctant to say so in too explicit a fashion , its periodic report demonstrates the urgent need to promote polycentric development of the Community area through the Union ' s structural policies and within the scope of the approach initiated by the SEC . 
Mr President , the Group of the Party of European Socialists in this Parliament agrees with the report that Mr Berend has just presented and congratulates the author , both on the quality of his conclusions and on his flexibility , which ensured that the different groups were able to incorporate amendments in committee . 
the European Commission ' s sixth report presents very valuable conclusions . 
I shall summarise two of those highlighted by the rapporteur , one positive and one negative . 
the first is that important advances have been made in regional and social cohesion throughout the Union and that the Community Funds have been a major , although not decisive , factor in reducing regional inequalities . 
the negative conclusion is that the great effort made has been more efficient in harmonising the European regions ' GDP and productivity than in harmonising its levels of unemployment . 
it is therefore necessary to link structural financing more closely to job creation . 
this , Commissioner , is the first commandment for the coming period . 
thus , Mr President , I ask my fellow Members to approve this report and I ask the Commission , as other speakers have done , to take good note of the conclusions of their sixth periodic report when they address the programming for the period 2000 @-@ 2006 . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I would first like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and for having taken due account of the proposed amendments while the committee was debating it . 
the sixth periodical report gives a basis for assessing the implementation of the Union ' s regional policy aims . 
the report shows that growth has been uneven , despite all our efforts . 
very rapid growth is continuing in Central Europe . 
the strongest regional centres also continue to grow faster than the general European average , whereas many southern European and northern areas are developing considerably more slowly . 
we now require an in @-@ depth analysis of why regional policy is not producing the desired result in all areas . 
is the reason bureaucracy or is it because insufficient notice has been taken of interregional differences , long distances , climates that are too cold or too hot , sparse populations and austere conditions ? 
how can the Union respond to the challenges of global development in a way that the less developed areas can remain a part of that development ? 
it is also important to discover what the effects of Union enlargement will be on Structural Funds and the development of the Union ' s more remote areas . 
the Member States must also bear in mind their responsibility . 
some Member States have been in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and cut national regional funds when regional aid coming via the Union has been increased . 
this has chipped away at the results that regional policy has produced . 
in the future , we must also develop indicators so that measures can be targeted at the right time at the right place . 
for example , uncontrolled migration has not been given sufficient consideration . 
in this connection , too , weight has to be given to the decisive importance of SMEs as employers and forces behind regional development . 
it is absolutely essential that companies in areas developing more slowly adopt the latest technology and know @-@ how . 
our Group is in favour of adopting this report . 
Mr President , Commissioner , the European Union ' s regional policy has , until now , not been able to interpret , in any significant way , the existing differences in our inhabitants ' incomes . 
Mr President , my compliments to the rapporteur for his in @-@ depth report . 
the key goal of the structural funds is to strengthen social and economic cohesion between the regions within the European Union . 
by stimulating a diversity of investments , the European Union is endeavouring to increase the GDP per capita and to boost employment . 
from the sixth periodic report on the regions , one can draw the hesitant conclusion that these incentives do not always have the desired effect . 
the efforts made in order to drive up the GDP per capita in Objective 1 regions do not always result in such an increase , not really a satisfying result over a period during which , certainly over the past couple of years , there has been economic growth . 
as indicated by the rapporteur , the effects of the structural measures , on the other hand , are minimal as far as employment is concerned . 
some reservation about the effectiveness of Community aid is therefore called for . 
also , the observation that the disparities between regions within Member States sometimes even become more pronounced raises serious questions . 
Mr President , it therefore seems worthwhile and necessary to focus attention on both national and regional authorities , especially in connection with boosting employment . 
it is , after all , they who have most knowledge about the regions which fall under their remit . 
by allowing them to develop tailor @-@ made plans for the relevant regions and , if necessary , tying this in with financial aid , a higher return can be achieved . 
surely this must be the ultimate goal . 
I am therefore in favour of the Commission delegating the practical details and implementation of measures to the Member States and regions . 
following on from this , it is probably also more meaningful , with regard to the financial aid to regions , to give Member States more say anyway . 
by shifting the criteria from the regions to the Member States , we can avoid a great deal of problems later on . 
finally , I would like to draw attention to the position of the Central and Eastern European countries . 
the report shows that , in general , they are a long way behind EU countries , especially in terms of GDP per capita . 
with the planned accession of a large number of these countries in the foreseeable future , it is a matter of urgency to review the current structural policy . 
I would like to take this opportunity to follow the example of others and call on the Commission to submit proposals for reform sooner rather than later . 
Mr President , Commissioner , following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part . 
for example , whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased , there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect . 
equally , unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all , indeed they rose in some cases . 
I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently . 
even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries . 
since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment , then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development , improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training . 
genuine structural reforms and a competition @-@ friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base . 
if we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost @-@ intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term , then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed . 
we will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate . 
Mr President , Commissioner , my thanks go to the rapporteur for handling this very important report , because developments in the social and economic situation will decide to what extent the citizens of Europe will judge that we have been successful in our work . 
this issue , which has an impact on their everyday life , is a key issue as regards EU credibility . 
it has to be conceded that the EU has already aided , I would say quite magnificently , the development of poor countries . 
I remember what Portugal and Greece used to be like when I drove through those countries for the first time twenty @-@ five years ago . 
in this connection , French speakers would speak of a " coup de chapeau " : in other words , I take my hat off to the EU . 
the EU really deserves such a gesture , but differences between rich and poor areas within countries are still too great . 
what is the result ? 
people react by voting with their feet and go where they can earn a crust . 
consequently , we have to build schools , hospitals , and the whole infrastructure for the same people in the same country many times over . 
this is very costly and it also causes very great social problems . 
most people , however , would like to live in the area in which they were born and raised , if they were given the chance to , in other words , if there was work there . 
we must give them this opportunity . 
this is a moral obligation the EU and all of us have . 
the solution , as I see it , lies in clearly encouraging entrepreneurship . 
by entrepreneurship I do not simply mean the ownership of business , but creating will . 
I mean the attitude where a person wants to get on in life , whether he or she is an employee , the owner of a business or an official . 
what is a fair society ? 
one in which someone from a modest background can get on in life so as to make life a little easier for his or her children . 
in this way , positive development of the regions is also possible , because people will start business and will work if they are given the chance . 
finally , I would say that in this matter we should learn a lesson from America , where hard work is still in fashion and success is an indication of ability and not the object of envy , as it often is here in Europe . 
Mr President , as all the previous speakers have done , I should like in turn to thank Mr Berend and congratulate him on the quality of his report . 
just like the previous report , this extremely competent and precise analysis , the recommendations it supports and your own comments , ladies and gentlemen , shall prove useful to the Commission in general and to the Commissioner responsible for regional policy in particular at this time when we are involved with the programming of appropriations for 2000 @-@ 2006 . 
I should also like to make a few comments , firstly , Mr Berend , regarding the assessment you have made of this sixth periodic report . 
you pointed out the quality of the report and you even wrote , if I am not mistaken , that it marked a real improvement in comparison with previous reports . 
on behalf of all the officials of the Commission and my predecessor , Mrs Wulf @-@ Mathies , I must inform you that we were very alert to the evaluation made by this House and by yourself . 
the Commission was certainly very anxious to ensure , Mr Berend , that this sixth periodic report should show that progress had been made and a threshold crossed in terms of the quality of the analysis submitted to you . 
I am thinking in particular of the contents of chapter 2.1 of this report , where the Commission examined in greater detail the economic definitions of regional competitiveness and attempted to analyse the extent to which this competitiveness may be supported , improved and influenced by factors which some of you - Mr Markov , just now , and Mrs Raschhofer - stressed very forcefully . 
I am thinking of technological research and development , infrastructure provision and quality , human resources potential , small and medium @-@ sized businesses and direct investment from abroad . 
so much for the quality . 
I do not wish to spend time right now , Mr Berend , going into details regarding my opinion of the general points which your House has already endorsed . 
let me just itemise them : the first point concerns the usefulness of the conclusions of this report in drawing up the priorities of the new regional policy , particularly for the negotiation of programming documents with the Member States . 
secondly , partnership , a subject which a number of you stressed , the role of local and regional authorities , the private sector , both sides of industry , associations and local community action groups . 
regarding this problem of partnership , I shall be extremely attentive to ensuring that the terms of the Structural Funds regulations are applied properly . 
thirdly , the need to develop the employment side of growth , even though I am aware , as Mr van Dam just said , that the prime responsibility is that of the Member States , and that , when we speak of the responsibility of Member States , and indeed of the usefulness or effectiveness of this regional policy , we must clearly establish what sort of period we are working in . 
Mr Fruteau stated just now that the fruits of growth were distributed inequitably . 
Mr Fruteau , we at least need to recognise that there is growth , and that we are not working in a period of stagnation or recession , as has been the case in the past . 
you will tell me that situations of growth or shortage do not affect everyone alike . 
I agree with your analysis . 
when there is growth , it must be better distributed , but a matter that is even more difficult and which more seriously affects the regions handicapped by their remoteness , be they the most remote or island regions , is the lack of growth which generally characterised the last two decades . 
fourthly , a point which Mrs Hedkvist Petersen stressed just now , the promotion of an equal opportunities policy for women and young people . 
fifthly , the importance and role of small and medium @-@ sized businesses . Mr Vatanen expressed this most forcefully just now . 
finally , the positive effects on national administrations of the system of management of the Structural Funds , the motives of officials in managing these funds , even if it is occasionally complicated , and the importance of once again making improvements to the procedures for the evaluation , follow @-@ up and supervision of the Commission . 
in relation to this , I must inform the European Parliament of my intention to organise halfway through the year 2000 a seminar with national and regional authorities on this question of the evaluation of procedures for the exchange of good practice in the management of Structural Funds . 
I should like to mention a few specific points . 
Mr Berend , you expressed a wish that zoning should be implemented quickly . 
well , we are coming to an end of the zoning phase . 
tomorrow , the Commission is to decide on the matter for four more countries and very soon , I hope , it will be Italy ' s turn . 
you may therefore be satisfied on this point , since zoning will have been completed for all the countries affected by Objective 2 . 
regarding the informal economy you mention in your report , I am well aware that the analysis and production of statistics on this subject are dependent on the reliability of data and , as Mr Cocilovo mentioned , there is clearly a problem with the reliability of this data . 
to a certain extent , they are taken into account in the statistics on GDP and labour force surveys and , in any case , I wish to point out the efforts which Eurostat is making and shall continue to make in order to improve the quality of the statistics . 
Mr Berend , you also mentioned , as did Mr Aparicio Sánchez , the lack of reform in the fisheries sector . 
on this point which is of personal interest to me , let me remind you that the small scale of this sector - and this does not necessarily mean that it is an insignificant area - and its concentration in a limited number of regions do not make it easy to analyse in a regional context . 
this type of sectoral analysis pertains rather to the practice and competence of the Directorate General for Fisheries , under Commissioner Fischler . 
nonetheless , I must assure you that the Commission will make every effort to include an analysis of this type in the second report on cohesion which , no doubt , will respond better to these concerns . 
several of you mentioned points which must be included in the second report on cohesion , and your rapporteur mentioned some of these . 
this will constitute a great challenge to us all , for you and for the Commission , in the next few years . and finally , there are the cross @-@ border aspects . 
I shall endeavour to comply with your recommendations on all these points . 
finally , I should like to mention a few political conclusions which you are , in any case , familiar with , but whose main elements I should like to reiterate . 
ladies and gentlemen , considerable progress has been made on the road to real convergence , particularly for the four cohesion countries , but also frankly , Mr Pohjamo , for the Objective 2 regions which had suffered some delays in terms of development , especially regarding infrastructure . 
this is my first point regarding the policy . 
my second point regarding the policy is as follows : the Structural Funds have made , and continue to make , a significant contribution to the convergence process . 
all the macroeconomic models we are working on show that , over the last decade , more than one third of the convergence achieved in the regions whose development is lagging behind would not have taken place without the Structural Funds . 
now to my fourth point regarding the policy ; enlargement of the Union , the great political and humanist project of the coming years for our institutions , the major challenge , too , for the European policy on cohesion , a point which Mr van Dam highlighted . 
I shall say that something is already taking shape in Berlin and in the financial instruments available to us which may be a policy on cohesion for the first countries who are going to join us . 
I am thinking in particular of the pre @-@ accession structural instrument , which I shall be responsible for implementing in the next few weeks . 
you see , ladies and gentlemen , we have only just initiated the new programming and we are already considering together the impact of the Union ' s enlargement on our structural policy . 
this sixth periodic report which you assessed as positive on the whole , Mr Berend , is a good basis for our thinking , for us all and for myself . 
I should therefore like to thank you most sincerely for your contribution to the thinking which we are already engaged in with regard to the forthcoming guidelines , as well as for the proper application of the guidelines for the period 2000 @-@ 2006 . 
thank you very much , Commissioner . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. 
( the sitting was closed at 8.25 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 respond to an invitation yesterday afternoon by the President of the House to speak on behalf of my group on a matter referred to in the Minutes . 
I refer to item 11 on the order of business . 
firstly , I believe the issue raised by the President of the Socialist Group yesterday about the reinstatement of the debate with the President of the Commission on the five @-@ year strategic programme was sufficiently important for other speakers who wished to comment briefly on that matter to have been accommodated . 
I wish to express that view even if I respectfully disagreed and voted against the proposal of the President of the Socialist Group . 
the second point I would like to make - and which I would have wished to make yesterday before the vote - is that this Parliament , as other speakers remarked yesterday , can only really have an effect if it works in close cooperation and synergy with the European Commission . 
there is one basic lesson I would like us to learn from this . 
when there are major set @-@ piece debates scheduled between this House and the European Commission in the future , we should clear all of our lines on what are our mutual expectations at least one full working month in advance . 
there needs firstly to be clarity between all of the groups of this House and then between this House and the Commission . 
we should not find ourselves late in the day in the unfortunate position where the one or other institution creates an unnecessary fracture in institutional relationships . 
looking at some of the press reports of last Friday , I believe that the Commission and its President exercised commendable self @-@ restraint in the way they commented publicly . 
that is something for which I have a deep appreciation . 
I hope that we will learn the lessons and not repeat this unnecessary exercise which I believe was founded on a misapprehension as to what was expected rather than any bad faith on the part of either of the two institutions . 
it should not be dramatised into something more than that . 
thank you very much , Mr Cox . 
I understand what you are saying . we have taken note of this . 
Mr President , concerning item 11 of the Minutes on the order of business , we agreed yesterday to have the Bourlanges report on today 's agenda . 
however , it was withdrawn from the Committee on Budgets last night without being discussed or voted on . 
it therefore needs to be withdrawn from today 's agenda . 
Mr Wynn , that makes sense . 
the report is hereby withdrawn from the agenda . 
Mr President , regarding Mrs Lynne 's comments yesterday about health and safety in this building , I presume she was talking about the drains because there is a dreadful smell of drains on the fifth floor in the Tower . 
this needs to be looked into because it is clearly an indication that something is seriously wrong . 
I do not want to drag up the issue of this building endlessly , but this is a serious problem . 
Mrs Ahern , we have taken note of this . 
I would ask you to bring this specific case , which has to do with the ventilators on a particular floor , to the attention of the Quaestors , who are , in fact , responsible for the matter . 
we will also pass this on to our services , however . 
thank you very much . 
( the Minutes were approved ) 
reform of European 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 - C5 @-@ 0105 / 1999 - 1999 / 2108 ( COS ) ] ; 
A5 @-@ 0078 / 1999 by Mr Rapkay , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the European Commission ' s XXVIIIth Report on Competition Policy 1998 [ SEK ( 1999 ) 743 - C5 @-@ 0121 / 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 the manufacturing and certain other sectors . [ COM ( 1999 ) 148 - C5 @-@ 0107 / 1999 - 1999 / 2110 ( COS ) ] ( Report 1995 @-@ 1997 ) ; 
Mr President , Commissioner , today we are engaged in an important debate about the European Union ' s competition policy . 
we are debating a highly controversial modernisation proposal for European monopolies law , that is Mr von Wogau ' s report , and it is far more controversial than the vote in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs may have given us reason to believe . 
I want to make it quite clear that in this specific case I personally consider the Commission ' s proposal to be wrong and feel that it remains to be seen as to whether we are truly justified in using the term " modernisation " to describe the content of Articles 81 and 82 of the White Paper , or whether in this case it would be more appropriate to use the expression " retrograde step " . 
however , we are also discussing the aid report today and the general competition report for 1998 , and my contribution to this joint debate relates to the latter . 
but , of course , both the competition report and the aid report share common ground in this White Paper . 
it is all about the need for modernisation and the future viability of the European competition policy . 
on reading both Commission documents , one learns that 1998 was the year in which the modernisation proposals introduced in 1997 were pursued and even partially completed , which is something our own ongoing parliamentary work has taught us . 
allow me to make two fundamental comments at this juncture . 
as the competent authority , the Commission , with its logically consistent approach , has again and again served the cause of freedom of competition , not always to the delight of the Member States or enterprises concerned . 
it should continue along this path . 
but , Commissioner , none of this is to become less complicated in future - one only has to think of the challenges posed by the enlargement of the Union , the deepening of the internal market , technological progress , globalisation . 
indeed , it is not just about modernisation of Community law , more than anything it is about transparency of decisions taken in individual cases , about the possibility of decisions actually being able to implement decisions , for the European competition policy will be dependent on the population ' s acceptance , together with that of the political bodies and enterprises concerned . 
only , without transparency there will be no acceptance , indeed there can be no modernisation without transparency . 
the competition report 1998 is not a bad foundation for this but , in fact , there is nothing that could not be further improved upon . 
our motion will give you a great deal of food for thought , Commissioner , but there is one point that I would just like to go into now . transparency and accountability belong together . 
I do not wish to call the distribution of competences between the Commission and Parliament into question . 
the Commission is the executive and Parliament ought to have no desire whatsoever to take on this role , for the sake of its own independence ; but Parliament is a supervisory body , and what better forum could there be in which to expound the reasoning behind one ' s decisions than a democratically @-@ elected Parliament , indeed an ongoing parliamentary discussion ? 
here too we should continue along the path we have chosen , strengthening and intensifying it . 
there is one thing I would like to make quite clear though . Parliament is a legislative body , but the fact that we have no more than the right of consultation in matters of competition law , of all things , is truly scandalous . 
therefore , I would urge the Council and the Intergovernmental Conference to introduce the codecision procedure into legislation in this area . 
I expect the Commission to exploit every available opportunity for parliamentary cooperation and to involve Parliament in doubtful cases , even given the Treaty status quo . 
I also expect the Commission to be pro @-@ active in supporting us in our call for codecision in legislative procedures . 
this will be a good test as to whether there is reasonable cooperation between the two institutions . 
with all due respect for the principle of competition , competition is not , however , an end in itself . 
competition is an instrument and does not always produce ideal solutions . 
at the end of the day , one of the fundamental tenets of economic theory is that the market is failing in many respects and anyone who takes issue with this is nothing more than an ideologue . 
competition should bring about balance in supply and demand and should provide for the optimum distribution of economic resources and facts . 
but optimum efficiency does not necessarily come about of its own accord . 
framework conditions are indispensable when it comes to preventing abuses , monopolies law being one example . 
but on the whole , this only serves to prevent abuses ; framework conditions alone cannot achieve socially legitimate goals in isolation . 
competition yes , restrictions in state aid where necessary and where possible . 
however , since state aid forms the lion ' s share of the competition report 1998 I would still like , regardless of Mr Jonckheer ' s report , to say one more thing about it . 
it is certainly possible , indeed it must be feasible for state aid to be given to small and medium @-@ sized enterprises involved in research and development for the purpose of educating them in regional and environmental policy . 
indeed it must be permissible for state aid to be provided for such purposes , provided it does not lead to unacceptable distortion of competition . 
this is precisely the area where it is even more important than it is in monopolies and mergers law for decisions to be comprehensible . 
it is not just that we should pillory state aid ; rather our approach must be one of drawing distinctions and we must assess the different types of state aid in accordance with the extent to which they help to achieve the above @-@ mentioned objectives . 
my last comment was intended not so much for the Commission as for the Members of the Group of the European People ' s Party . 
Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , the report which I have the opportunity to propose to you today is an opinion on the Commission ' s Annual Report on the state aid in force within the European Union and for which the Community is authorised under Articles 87 , 88 and 89 of the Treaties . 
the Commission report is essentially a descriptive report detailing the development of state aid in the manufacturing sector and certain other sectors , according to various typologies , such as the method of financing and the objectives pursued . 
to put it plainly , the level of state aid declared , roughly speaking , is generally stable during the period under discussion and comes to approximately 1.2 % of Community GDP or more or less the equivalent , coincidentally , of the Community budget for one year . 
this being the case , there are considerable disparities between states , which may be measured in various ways , such as , for example , as a percentage of added value and per wage earner . 
I think it is also interesting to add state aid and Community aid , which may be assimilated in some way into state aid . 
this clearly shows that it is the four countries which benefit from the Cohesion Fund , among other things , which come at the top of the list . 
this being the case , let me now come to the proposals made in the report . 
the Commission can only collate and analyse the data provided by the Member States . 
it is therefore down to the states and regions to ensure the quality of the data provided , and our committee considers that additional efforts must be made in this respect . 
it is in this spirit that our parliamentary committee for example , has championed the longstanding idea of a public register of state aid , accessible via the Internet . 
having better , more detailed information available , particularly with regard to the objectives pursued and the results recorded , must make it possible for the European Commission to itself proceed or to commission in a regular manner studies of the social and economic evaluation of national and regional state aid policies . 
and insofar as such studies already exist , to publish more openly its own comments with regard to the objectives of the Treaties , which are not only to ensure the competitivity of the European economy , but also sustainable development and economic and social cohesion . 
by stressing , primarily , the quality of the information provided , our debate in committee , and hence the report which it is my honour to present to you , avoided a simplistic response in the form of an a priori statement that the level of state aid was , in absolute terms , either too high or not high enough . 
this being the case , various amendments to the rapporteur ' s initial draft report were adopted in committee , particularly highlighting the need for effective reimbursement of aid found to be illegal as well as the establishment of a league table of results . 
seven amendments have been retabled for this plenary sitting . 
most of them are an expression of the political differences among ourselves regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of state aid , in view of the inadequacies , acknowledged or not , of private investment alone , the market failures or inadequacies of the market . 
there is in particular one amendment , let me point out , concerning the energy sector , which , in my capacity as rapporteur , I see as particularly important . 
I should like to conclude this presentation , Commissioner , by stressing two things : firstly , a concern of the members of the committee and , secondly , a demand of our committee . 
the concern involves the pre @-@ accession process for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe , in terms of competition policy and state aid . 
this is undoubtedly a complex issue , and one where we should like to see the Commission informing us of the latest development in the matter , particularly in terms of the capacity of the economies involved in the accession process to comply with competition rules and , as far as state aid is concerned , the need , in all probability , to have specific rules on state aid used to assist restructuring of their sectors . 
and finally , in conclusion , our demand regarding the future responsibilities of the European Parliament in the matters we are discussing , competition policy and state aid , in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference . 
as you know , Commissioner , our report argues that the codecision procedure should apply in the case of basic legislation on state aid . 
Mr President , Commissioner , my contribution to today ' s debate concerns the steel aid code , that is the state aid in Europe granted in accordance with this code and which was assessed by the Commission . 
there were a total of 27 cases in 1998 and the Commission submitted its own report on these . 
the ECSC Treaty is due to expire shortly . 
hence , what we must focus on today is the question as to how state aid is to be managed in future . the European Commission ' s decisions , which feature in the report , are welcomed by the European Parliament , as is the decision to ask for the money back in specific cases , thus applying Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty . 
the competitiveness of the European steel industry also forms the subject of the Commission ' s most recent communication , which we have not yet debated in Parliament . 
as in other sectors , the general ban on state aid according to Article 87 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty also applies to the iron and steel industry . 
according to this article , state aid is irreconcilable with the common market , in principle . 
exemptions are only permitted in precisely defined cases . 
under Article 88 , the Commission is obliged to supervise state aid . 
in 1998 , the largest case concerned the supply of company capital totalling EUR 540 million to the PREUSSAG in Germany . 
furthermore , the Member States must give the Commission advance warning with regard to their intentions concerning state aid . 
the rules pertaining to the steel industry were drawn up on 18 December 1996 . 
these stipulate that state aid can only be awarded to the steel industry in particular , precisely @-@ defined cases i.e. those involving aid for research and development , aid for environmental protection , social security to ease the closure of steelworks and aid to help non @-@ competitive enterprises cease trading altogether . 
in addition , there is a special provision of up to EUR 50 million for Greece . 
however , there were obviously problems with the practical administration of the steel aid code over the past few years that were not brought fully to bear in the report . 
as far as Parliament is concerned , it is important for us to waste no time in getting down to a debate on the regulations that are to succeed this state aid code once it has expired . 
there must be no watering @-@ down of the existing principles underlying the steel aid code . 
no one wants an unimpeded subsidy competition in Europe . 
this would be to the considerable disadvantage of the internal market , regardless of the fact that the steel industry has undergone consolidation in the past few years . 
consequently , Parliament believes it is necessary for the steel aid code to be amended in the light of the industry ' s claims about unequal treatment , and for the Commission to provide the Council with follow @-@ up regulations . 
we all know that so far the Council has dragged its feet with regard to follow @-@ up regulations of this kind . 
the reason for this is that people are under the impression that once the steel aid code expires , they will be able to do their own thing again without the inconvenience of the European Commission ' s supervision . 
we therefore demand that once the Treaty expires , steel aid must be regulated by a Council regulation according to Article 94 , for that is the only way to create the necessary legal validity and clarity . 
this is the only way to enforce the strict ban on all aid not covered by the code . 
a Council regulation that is directly applicable law must also be observed by the regional governments . 
what we need to avoid doing in the future is compromising competition conditions and disturbing the balance in the markets . 
we also need to criticise the Commission ' s practice of approving multiple aid packages for steel enterprises which in their view , do not fall within the categories of the code , even given the fact that the European Court of Justice approved this unequal treatment where certain individual decisions were concerned . 
the Commission will be called upon , in a report that has yet to be compiled for the year 1999 , to give a detailed explanation of its active role in the elaboration of restructuring plans and approved exemptions , thus enabling a proper assessment of the overall situation to be made . 
once the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted the draft report unanimously with two abstentions , I would ask that we make full use of this opportunity , which we have ourselves created , in plenary sitting . 
Mr President , as a new Member I am pleased to be able to make my maiden speech here today , even though there has been a delay . 
I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteurs Mr von Wogau , Mr Langen , Mr Rapkay and Mr Jonckheer , as well as the Commission , for their excellent cooperation . 
competition is certainly fundamental to the social market economy and European competition policy is a success story ; take the energy and telecommunications sectors , where there has been a demonstrable lowering of prices and improvement in quality of service . 
all this is to the good of the consumer . 
but we have now arrived at a point where we need to develop competition policy further . 
the Commission has put forward a new White Paper on this containing two key points : dropping the obligation to notify and retrodisplacement of law enforcement . 
dropping the obligation to notify will mean less red tape and administration costs , at any rate . 
at the same time , this change of system will also lead to more onus being placed on the individual in the business world , of course . 
it will no longer simply be a case of submitting papers and having them approved ; for one thing , each person will have to take responsibility themselves , and that is probably why there is unease about this in other quarters . 
however I believe that we should use this opportunity for Europe to set down a marker for less red tape . 
the second point relates to the retrodisplacement of law enforcement . 
if we are to create a culture of law in Europe , then there is no doubt that the law must be applied not only by the Commission , by central bodies , but also by national authorities , by national courts . 
we are not discussing the fact that although every EU law is only ever decided on centrally , it is precisely the adaptation phase where we will experience a lack of legal certainty . 
it will certainly be necessary to develop an instrument for this in the anticipated legislative procedure that will enable enterprises to enjoy legal certainty and to have recourse to the Commission in this matter . 
the way to a European monopolies commission must be kept clear , something that will certainly form a subject for future discussion . 
but we need there to be more transparency in the competition policy . 
Parliament must have more involvement and I also believe that if we were to introduce a register in which we could ascertain what state aid is being granted , then this would encourage the Member States to be more disciplined . 
however , when it comes to what the future holds for competition , there are two issues dear to my heart . 
one is subsidiarity . 
we all hold the view that competition is vital to the economy and requires there to be efficiency , and I believe we should also permit competition in the regions . 
competition between the regions will certainly strengthen rather than weaken the European Union . 
I would cite , by way of example , the issue of job creation schemes , savings banks and regional banks , and Gütesiegel . 
here , a region has , by its own efforts , created a means of marketing its own products . 
this own initiative must not be destroyed by European intervention . 
I believe there is also a need to raise the de minimis regulation . 
we should do everything within our power to force the regions into a situation where they have to compete with each other . 
my second point relates to discussion about competition and the social market economy , although I am not going to talk about market failure just now . 
I have already referred to the regional and savings bank sector , but I would just like to focus on a matter one hears again and again in certain quarters . 
these days , someone who lives in an old people ' s home is accommodated within the social field . 
however , I could also regard them as a customer , and I believe we should enter into rather clear and timely discussion on the ways in which the social field , that is evolved structures , stifle competition . 
apart from that , I could refer to any customers , any sector , as customers , and thereby have a highly destructive effect on social fields . 
to conclude , I would just like to say something on the principle of subsidiarity . I believe it to be of vital importance that where Member States allow regions and local authorities to raise taxes , they should continue to be able to do so and not be subject to across- the @-@ board regulation by Europe . 
thank you very much , Mr Radwan . 
I would like to congratulate you on what is referred to in German parliamentary @-@ speak , inappropriately in your case , as a maiden speech . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I am speaking on behalf of my fellow Member , Robert Goebbels , who is unable to attend due to a political commitment . 
within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , the Jonckheer report has given rise to bitter controversy on the subject of the operation of the market . 
a slim right @-@ wing majority succeeded in removing any reference to market failures . 
even if the majority in this House were to adhere to this ultraliberal idea of a supposedly perfect market , it would not make any difference to the real world . 
economic relationships in the real world adequately demonstrate that eliminating all public intervention in the market does not in any way bring about perfect competition and the optimum distribution of resources . 
while , since the dawn of time , the market has been the key forum for human interchange , it has never been perfect . 
the market favours the short term and immediate profits . 
on the market , the balance of power between supply and demand are generally to the detriment of the weakest parties , consumers and workers . 
in order to function , the market needs rules . 
the necessary and valuable spirit of initiative must be offset by a sense of responsibility towards society . 
we European Socialists are in favour of a market economy with a social purpose . 
the market is not an end in itself ; it must help to improve the human condition . 
the European Union or individual States must not take over from economic operators , but public authorities must define the rules and objectives which enable the economy to develop in a sustainable fashion . 
finally , aid can enable restructuring , offer training , save jobs and thus know @-@ how . 
the main objective of the Union ' s competition policy cannot be to reduce the overall level of aid . 
this aid must be aligned with the objectives of the Union , particularly economic and social cohesion , sustainable development and research . 
the Commission must track down the illegal aid and the aid which actually hinders the internal market . 
it would be a serious mistake to eliminate all public aid . 
the Internet is not a product of the market , but the result of research financed by the American army . 
the World Wide Web , which has enabled the meteoric development of the information society , was developed by CERN in Geneva , once again with public aid . 
the German Government ' s intervention to save the Holzmann group was criticised as an unjustifiable constraint upon the market economy . 
President Duisenberg even attempted to attribute the weakness , the entirely relative weakness of the euro in relation to the dollar to this state interventionism . 
I did not hear Mr Duisenberg criticising the intervention of the American monetary authorities to save the hedge fund , LTCM . 
wishing to save 60 000 jobs is , apparently , a sin against the market , but saving capital does not seem to present any problem for the advocates of the free market . 
public monies are used in order to repair the damage caused by international speculation , as was the case in Mexico , Asia and Brazil . 
human labour , on the other hand , is considered to be a simple factor in the equation . 
we Socialists reject the liberals ' naïve optimism on this point . 
we want a true culture of competition in Europe . 
the state hand must still be clearly seen to regulate the market and the Commission must act as judge . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I want to begin by thanking Mr Rapkay for a good report and constructive cooperation . 
I want to thank you , Commissioner Monti , for your outstanding cooperation and I want to tell you that , as we enter the new millennium , you have an especially important role . 
it is your job to tidy up the mess left by national governments . these may well have grand visions when it comes to competition policy , but their capacity to wreak havoc seems boundless . 
let me mention the latest examples we have seen : Holzmann , a company which receives considerable aid from the German Government ; sawmills in former East Germany ; and , especially , aid to shipyards . 
these are three areas in which many Danish companies are experiencing major problems and are being squeezed out of their markets . 
I want to say to Mr Poos that I very much agree with Mr Duisenberg that these examples show that some EU Member States are not in a position to restructure their economies and , to that extent , are helping to undermine the value of the euro . 
the Group of the European Liberal , Democrat and Reform Party has tabled 80 amendments in the committee , all concerning state aid . 
these are amendments which we believe will lead to transparency and openness , which is very important with a view to making the internal market work . 
I should like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the committee for supporting the amendments tabled by the Group of the European Liberal , Democrat and Reform Party . 
as I say , our amendments concern transparency , and I should like to emphasise the amendment which urges the Commission to propose uniform criteria and conditions for the type of state aids we consider to be lawful , specifically in order to ensure that companies can predict what their situation will be . 
another issue is that of what we are to do when state aid is declared unlawful . 
how do we ensure that unlawful state aid is paid back ? 
at present , there are no common rules in this area , and we vigorously urge the Commission to make a point of harmonising the rules on repayment . 
this is the way forward if we are to ensure uniform conditions of competition . 
finally , we propose keeping both a register , as mentioned by a number of my fellow MEPs , and also a scoreboard showing where the Member States at present stand with regard to state aid . 
you have shown us the way , Mr Monti , with the single market scoreboard . 
it was this which inspired us to propose the same thing with regard to state aid . 
I very much hope that you , Commissioner Monti , will support these amendments , and I look forward to your comments and to finding out where you stand on this matter . 
to conclude , I want to welcome the Commission ' s XVIIIth Report on Competition Policy , on which , once again , a good deal of work has been done . 
but , as I have already mentioned , our overriding objectives ought still to be those of transparency and openness . 
there is still a need to tighten up in the areas mentioned , and there is therefore good reason for continuing to work resolutely towards solving the problems concerning the lack of transparency and openness in the area of state aid . 
this is especially necessary in relation to the forthcoming enlargement of the Union , and I should like to thank Mr Jonckheer who , in his report , has considered very thoroughly the problems associated with enlargement and with ensuring that the applicant countries are able to meet our criteria , as well as with ensuring common conditions of competition . 
as Liberals and Greens , we clearly have different opinions on how the world should look , but we are well on the way to agreement as to our objectives , and we shall try to find reasonable solutions to our problems . 
Mr President , Commissioner , there are just two questions which must be answered . 
are state aid to business or inter @-@ company agreements legitimate in a market economy , and who must supervise these exceptions to the absolute rules of the market economy ? 
regarding the first point , we say quite clearly that , in order to take into consideration the requirements of sustainable development which the European Union has endorsed , it is essential that , in some instances , there is state aid to businesses , be it in the form of tax exemptions , special taxation or even direct aid . 
it is also legitimate for there to be inter @-@ company agreements and voluntary restraint agreements , since all these agreements make it possible to reduce the detrimental effects of competition on social or ecological requirements . 
so our clear response is that , yes , such aid and such agreements are legitimate , but we say that every single one of these agreements must be expressly justified . 
the von Wogau report proposes referring supervision of the legitimacy of individual cases to national level . 
we feel this is relatively dangerous , but all the same we shall vote in favour of it because we recognise that the Commission cannot do everything . 
we demand that the greatest possible transparency should be in place and that greater powers of investigation be granted to the Commission in order to check the legitimacy of such exceptions after the fact . 
Mr President , once again we are debating the European Union ' s competition policy . 
but let us stop to consider the circumstances in which this debate is taking place and the conclusions to which it should bring us . 
the overriding features of today ' s economy are massive mergers and acquisitions involving huge companies with a market monopoly and the emergence of frighteningly powerful multinational groups . 
should we not be discussing this issue ? 
we need a competition policy which can and will introduce controls on the activities of these private @-@ sector monopolies . 
certain sectors of European industry , such as the shipbuilding industry , air transport and the steel industry , which have been hard hit by existing competition policy , have suffered tremendously . 
they have lost their status , and a significant slice of the world market and hundreds of thousands of workers have been made redundant . 
when will we debate that ? 
the scandalous concentration of power in sectors of strategic importance is giving speculative multinational groups economies the size of entire states , and Member States of the Union at that . 
and yet , we keep on weakening the public sector and we are ready and willing to tighten competition policy yet further by qualifying public procurement contracts placed with public @-@ sector corporations as state aid . 
at the same time , unemployment is spiralling as a result of the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs . 
workers are facing a massive attack on their employment and social rights . 
consumers see their standard of living being eroded , poverty spreading and the public sector and production base in most countries in the Union being dismantled and dissolved in the name of unadulterated and catastrophic competition , in the name of the absolute market economy and the promotion of the monopolistic interests of big business . 
we consider the competition policy to be responsible for all this and are totally opposed to it . 
Mr President , Commissioner , in the course of this pivotal year , prior to the changeover to the single currency , the Commission has deployed every effort to ensure the birth of the euro in a favourable environment . 
the competition policy has , as far as these resources permitted , contributed to this event . 
for our part , we remain staunchly opposed to the single currency which , far from bringing us the advantages and flexibility of a shared currency , imprisons us in an artificial straitjacket , which has been imposed on the peoples of Europe . 
having said that , governing means planning . it also means being responsible and , in this new context which has been forced upon us , competition law naturally has an essential role to play . 
in this area , the Commission has given priority to a number of routes of action : acting on the structure of markets by actively combating anti @-@ competitive practices , by refocusing its departments ' supervisory activities only upon matters with a manifest Community interest and by affirming its intention to modernise competition law . 
as regards state aid , it is essential to ensure that regulations are not made more complex , and the introduction of a public register , where all aid would be recorded , does not seem advisable to us since this onerous commitment would quite naturally run counter to the attempts to simplify bureaucratic constraints . 
finally , on the subject of modernising the implementation of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty , we do not think that decentralised application would necessarily be going in the right direction . 
the Commission is , in fact , retaining not only the power to take matters out of the jurisdiction of national authorities , but clearly obliging the national jurisdictions to avoid disputing the decisions of the Commission at all . 
national states would thus become the secular arm of the Commission regarding observance of the application of rules which they do not control . 
in conclusion , I would say that while some measures are heading in the right direction , we shall of course remain vigilant in order to prevent the snowballing of Federalism which , if it were realised , would be to the detriment of Europe and the sovereignty of the states . 
Mr President , Commissioner , we have a basically positive view of the Commission ' s White Paper on competition , particularly as regards the abolition of the system of notification and authorisation , but we are also puzzled by several things . 
in this respect , we should heed the words of von Eieck , and doubtless also those of the great Italian liberal Bruno Leoni , who warned precisely against the risks of an abnormal increase in anti @-@ competition policies . 
state interference in the economy is , even today , still to blame for the most serious hindrances placed in the way of the market , competition and freedom of choice for European users and consumers . 
there is State aid for businesses - we have already discussed this , there is still a strong public presence in the economy - it is estimated that the Italian Treasury controls 15 % of stock exchange capitalisation ; governments and central banks place obstacles in the way of mergers and acquisitions ; and there has been much talk in recent weeks about Vodafone ' s bid for Mannesmann and the bailout of Holzmann . 
finally , Commissioner , we cannot forget that large sections of the economy are still firmly in the hands of the state , ranging from state television , which is funded on a mandatory basis by the taxpayer , and the Post Office , to some compulsory insurance schemes , including health and social welfare systems , which are managed by inefficient state monopolies which leave no @-@ one but the wealthy user with any other option . 
Commissioner , I am quite familiar with the constraints imposed by the Treaties , but I believe that , it must be emphasised once again that the European economy is finding it hard to compete with the American economy , especially because of insufficiently open markets and a lack of genuine competition . 
what is being done may well be very important , but it is still not sufficient . 
Mr President , we are holding a special debate : on competition policy and state aid , the government ' s right and left hand , so to speak . 
whilst the EMU criteria are forcing Member States to curb expenditure , the high level of state aid to industry has so far remained in place . 
this is understandable , because it is highly likely that Member States which start to cut back on state aid will cause companies to leave , with adverse effects on employment . 
but , at the same time , this is not understandable because bad management and non @-@ viable jobs should not be funded by taxpayers ' money . 
in principle , only horizontal regulations are permissible because they do not distort , or hardly distort , competition . 
the rapporteur ' s Amendments Nos 6 and 7 , therefore , deserve our support . 
amendments Nos 1 and 5 make reference to the phenomenon of market failure because the market instrument in itself does not result in the ideal society . 
vulnerable people find themselves hardest hit . 
market forces must be employed in a sophisticated manner to do full justice to the responsibility of citizens and companies . 
if this comes to nothing , then the government has to step in . 
the Commission ' s White Paper on modernising competition policy seems more like a discussion paper . 
the plea in favour of decentralisation in order to lighten the load within the Directorate @-@ General on Competition is a kind gesture , but the way in which the Commission would like to carry this through would lead to the judiciary being stretched . 
this would be at the expense of legal certainty within industry . 
does the pressure of work within the Commission really decrease when national judges are required to report to the Commission ? 
what is the Council ' s opinion on this and is the Commissioner prepared to completely reconsider these points ? 
Mr President , a White Paper , by definition , is not something you can take or leave . it is there to generate reactions and the White Paper has certainly succeeded in doing that . 
it forms a sound basis for discussion and is to be welcomed in this sense . 
I understand where the authors are coming from and I share their views . 
I also assume that you , Commissioner , want to honour the reputation of , and the work put in by , your predecessors and that your offices will pursue the same objective . 
I cannot imagine the Commission taking initiatives in order to de @-@ Europeanise or re @-@ nationalise in a thorough manner , but I have my concerns and questions nevertheless . 
firstly , these relate to the coherence of the policy ' s application . 
in general , I am a great defender of cultural diversity but not in terms of competitiveness within the internal market . 
the internal market needs a uniform competition policy , not only in terms of concept , but also in terms of application . 
it is true , there are some European regulations and interpretative statements on the way . 
the Commission is also said to have the right of evocation and can give guidelines to the national competition authorities . 
but I still wonder if we do not run the risk of ending up in a kind of Echternach procession where we will have to take one step back before we are able to take two steps forward . 
so , I would like to hear more about how the Commission will guarantee this uniform application in practice and whether you yourself consider the courses outlined from point one hundred onwards in the White Paper to be feasible . 
secondly , I understand the worry of industry regarding legal certainty . 
many dossiers are currently being filed with precisely this concern . 
this instrument will fall by the wayside in future . 
in the White Paper , you state that the Commission will still issue particular orders which can be used as guidelines , but what will your criteria be for granting such orders one day but not the next ? 
thirdly , I would like to know whether the Commission has looked into the effects its new approach will have on industrial strategy . 
I have particular concerns regarding the fate of SMEs which will lose part of their legal and financial protection , as is already the case , one has got to admit , within the new vertical group exemption for the distribution sector . 
fourthly , I would like to be informed of why the Commission does not choose to apply the invalidity penalty in the case of evident infringements of the competition rules . 
fifthly , with the pending enlargement , I wonder whether the candidate counties will be able to play our game . 
they are still in training , as it were . 
what guarantees do we have that they will grow into first @-@ class players in the league of the internal market ? 
sixthly and lastly , I would remind you of a point that I have already raised in my report on vertical restrictions , namely the legal privilege of company lawyers . 
if the Commission implements the White Paper objectives , it seems to me that discrimination within the internal market and between external and internal legal advisers will become more pronounced and hence even less acceptable . 
is the Commission considering taking any action to allow in @-@ house lawyers in all Member States legal privilege ? 
Commissioner , I am asking these questions as a defender of the internal market and I hope that , in this sense , we are all partners and that the discussion between these partners does not remain sterile but can bear fruit . 
Mr President , I would like , in beginning my speech regarding the White Paper , to congratulate the rapporteur , Mr von Wogau . 
the fact that the Group of the Party of European Socialists is very much in agreement with your report is clearly demonstrated by the fact that only one amendment has been presented during this procedure . 
we are , therefore , in agreement with the report , Commissioner , as well as the broad outlines of the White Paper . 
since the Treaty entered into force , Community law on competition has been one of the tenets of Community policy . 
after almost forty years of being in force , these rules were beginning to show signs of exhaustion . 
for this reason , modernisation was essential . 
that modernisation came to be particularly necessary for five reasons . 
firstly , the authorisation system ; secondly , decentralised application ; thirdly , procedural rules ; fourthly , judicial application ; and fifthly and finally , excessive red tape . 
the system of individual approvals needed urgent reform , as was unanimously requested by specialised companies , academics and lawyers . 
I have not attended a single forum of specialists in competition law which has not requested a change to the system . 
a system , such as the current one , which is capable of making so few decisions , be they approvals or prohibitions , is something less than a valid system . 
national competition authorities were able to apply Articles 81 ( 1 ) and 82 for some time . 
however , they could not apply Article 81 ( 3 ) , which , to a certain extent , prevented the coherent application of Article 81 ( 1 ) . 
you will know that there are currently two preliminary issues before the Court of Justice , both brought by German courts , which question the feasibility of applying 81 ( 1 ) without being able to apply 81 ( 3 ) . 
a reform of this point was therefore also necessary . 
the procedure in the field of competition is basically contained in Regulation 1762 . 
the voices in favour of its amendment were unanimous . 
the fact that it did not establish a genuine procedure , that it did not establish time limits , that it did not regulate access for interested parties to the files , or that the right to defence was not properly recognised , were factors which led to the unanimous demand for reform . 
the Court of Justice accepted some time ago that Community competition law could be applied by the legal bodies of the Member States and in 1994 , the Commission published a communication on this subject . 
it was therefore necessary to facilitate this approach . 
one of the most frequent criticisms of Community competition law is its excessive red tape . 
as a consequence of the continental legal tradition , consideration of whether certain agreements are anti @-@ competitive or not depends more on an analysis of their clauses than on their effects on the market . 
it was therefore necessary to introduce an economic analysis . 
the White Paper intends to resolve these problems and we therefore support these proposals . 
it is also true that we note certain deficiencies which have come to light in the report . 
amongst these , firstly , is the fact that , despite trying to modernise Articles 81 and 82 , Article 81 and not Article 82 carries exclusive weight . 
at the moment , with inter @-@ company agreements and the privatisation of monopolies preserving dominant positions and even consolidating them , the combating of abusive conduct is becoming particularly important . 
secondly , Regulation 1762 must be repealed and replaced with a new regulation . 
for these reasons , we are going to vote in favour of the report . 
however , if some of the amendments are accepted , particularly those presented by the PPE @-@ DE Group , we would consider the report to be stripped of its value and to have become an inconsistent document , lacking in rigour and , in that event , we would reconsider our support . 
Mr President , amongst the various issues being dealt with in this joint debate , I would like to comment on the one mentioned by Mr Berenguer , that is to say , the modernisation of competition policy , which is the subject of the Commission ' s White Paper . 
frankly , I believe that this modernisation has been satisfactory . 
if it functions well , if we are satisfied , if the Commission has basically acted correctly , why the need for the modification ? 
various arguments have been presented in its favour . 
Mr Berenguer made a very accurate analysis , justifying the need and the relevant reforms for improving the dynamics of competition , but my concern is to ensure that the standards and criteria which will be applied through the corresponding administrations in the Member States , are truly identical in all regions . 
because , if this is not the case , we will be faced with the paradox that the Commission itself will introduce elements of unfair competition into the functioning of the European internal market . 
in that event we would not have moved forward , but rather backwards , in the application of competition policy in the Union . 
Mr President , I would like firstly to express my appreciation to the Commission for the improvement represented by the XXVIIIth report on competition policy in the Union , when compared to previous reports . 
I would also like to highlight the work carried out by the rapporteur , Mr Rapkay , who has dissected this dense and comprehensive text in such a concise way . 
I would also like to fully support his comments on the need to allow the regions - such as the Basque Country , which I represent - a margin for action , by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity . 
the only guarantee has been to seek prior favourable approval , through individual cases , which will take more than six or eight months to resolve , an excessively long period , which simply leads to problems of a lack of flexibility , affecting the generation of wealth and employment . 
I therefore believe that something is missing and I suggest that we establish more regulations , lay down clear rules , which will benefit all of us : businesspeople , investors , workers and the citizens in general . 
Mr President , I would like to stress that , in an age of significant technological changes - just look at what is happening in the information technology sector and other sectors such as energy and transport - safeguarding competition will be of fundamental importance for our future . 
from the point of view of economic growth , and therefore of increasing employment and wealth , safeguarding a competition policy in the Member States is becoming a crucial factor , and one that is certainly very important for our future . 
this is why I give this report my full support . 
recently , I have noticed that the Commission has been working hard to ensure that this principal is respected in a proper and effective manner , precisely in order to safeguard market flexibility , both for products and for services . 
I would emphasise that this is going to be extremely important for our future , for Europe ' s economy , and , above all , for the protection of our wealth and technological development in Europe in general . 
Mr President , for British Conservatives the efficient and uniform application of European competition policy is at the core of achieving an effective single market across the whole of the European Union . 
it therefore follows that any proposal which suggests major reform of the machinery for competition policy enforcement must be closely and carefully examined . 
the truth is that the single market is not yet complete . 
during my six months as a Member of this Parliament , I have become acutely aware of the determination of many Members to drive forward what is described as the European project . 
we daily hear the need to promote a wider and deeper Europe . 
but all this , in effect , is so much rhetoric when we look at the national , regional and local obstacles which continue to block the operation of a true European single market . 
that is the context in which I want to consider the Commission 's proposals . 
I should like to make it clear that we have the greatest confidence in and respect for Commissioner Monti . 
we look to him as the man to root out cartels . 
but he would recognise that , as for everybody else , we have to consider his particular proposals and subject them to rigorous examination . 
that is something that has been done by our rapporteur on the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs , Mr von Wogau . 
I want to congratulate him , sadly in his absence , for the thorough and rigorous way in which he has undertaken the preparation of his report - and also for putting up with my being such a thorn in his side ! 
he mentioned earlier that the report was carried with a significant majority but not with my support . 
so although I may not share his conclusions , I believe he has illustrated in his report many of the issues which the Commission must address . 
the first is the potential for renationalisation of competition policy . 
I know that the Commission is set against this , but the potential exists . 
I remain worried about the capacity of national courts and the capacity of the national competition authorities . 
I remain worried about the whole operation of the judicial process . 
I asked Commissioner Monti the other day what happens if he proves to be wrong and there is an effective renationalisation . 
Mr von Wogau said we can look to the European Court . 
well , we in Britain are looking to the European Court at the moment . 
we find that the European Court is not able to provide us with interim measures in a certain dispute that we have with France at the moment , in which we have the support of the Commission . 
unless anybody thinks that this is merely a nationalistic point , in the Factortame case , in which the British Government was the defendant , it took ten years for the European Court to give a ruling . 
so , judicially , something needs to be done . 
I ask the Commission what can be done to speed up implementation in this particular area . 
in relation to legal certainty , I endorse the point made by Mrs Thyssen . 
it is important that business has legal certainty . 
I mentioned this again to Commissioner Monti recently . 
he said we must not always be carried along by lawyers . 
I must declare an interest as a lawyer but also as a former competition minister in the United Kingdom . 
we all have , as it were , our histories to live with , but it is important that business has legal certainty . 
I would also ask the Commission whether an analysis has been undertaken of the implications of this change for business : a cost @-@ benefit analysis of the sort that is now becoming so much more European policy . 
I know there has been an analysis of the implications for the Commission of the change . 
we have been told how , currently , people 's time is being wasted and that the changes , therefore , could be beneficial . 
but I really feel that , in the circumstances , we want to know what the implications would be for business . 
finally , we , as British Conservatives , are looking for a change in direction , towards the development of an independent competition authority . 
I would like to hear what Commissioner Monti has to say about that . 
Mr President , the European Union ' s competition policy has been of central importance since European integration began . 
it is an integral part of the tension , inherent in the very concept of European integration , between solidarity and cooperation between Member States , with a view to creating a better and more efficient environment for the people and the economy , and competition , which should provide incentives to improve the competitiveness and future viability of the European Union as an entity . 
it is therefore with some justification that competition policy is one of the most important policies . 
we can be proud of a European competition culture , for it is this that will make the social market economy a reality . 
we can be proud of monopolies and mergers supervision . 
however , we must be vigilant in the face of global operators , against whom nation @-@ states are no longer able to impose limits . 
that is why we should bear in mind what was said by the French writer Vivienne Forestier , who described the state of the world in terms of the economy ' s reign of terror . 
society is surrendering itself to the economy . 
that is precisely what we do not want in the European Union . 
European competition policy , as we very often forget , is not just important for fair competition as such , but also for prices , growth and employment , and hence for the public . 
in common with the other Members , I call for Parliament to have codecision rights where competition law is concerned . 
it is essential that this long overdue step be taken . 
it is also important to underline the connection between competition policy and consumer protection . 
I welcome the fact that Commissioner Monti wants to make progress in this area in the dialogue with the European Parliament , as he does in the dialogue with non @-@ governmental organisations , consumer protection associations and the public . 
greater transparency will also help to achieve public acceptance of decisions relating to competition policy . 
then it is possible to understand that , for example , lower electricity and telecommunications prices are due to European competition policy , and Brussels should not be pilloried when aid decisions are taken which are , of course , bound to cause problems at a particular moment in time or in a local context . 
it is particularly important for there to be clarity in relation to competition rules in view of EU enlargement . 
emphasis must also be placed on the fact that a state aid policy - and the Jonckheer report makes this very clear - must continue to afford each state the freedom to define and organise the tasks of the public sector and ownership structures on an independent basis . 
at the same time , it must be made clear that aid can serve a useful purpose , with a view to offsetting the deficiencies of the market and furthering Community objectives . 
a word on the White Paper : the revision of Articles 81 and 82 represents a change of direction in monopolies policy . 
I am opposed to this , unlike the majority of this House and indeed the majority of my own group , because I believe that , in competition policy terms , the directly applicable exception system is in every sense inferior to a system of prohibition unless certain conditions are met , and I believe there is a threat of renationalisation . 
the system currently in force creates transparency , affords enterprises legal certainty and has , without a shadow of a doubt , led to discipline and acted as a deterrent on account of the notification requirement . 
the problem of overwork highlighted by the Commission is not a sufficient reason for making radical changes to the legal system . 
indeed , it is debatable whether this could be carried through at all without amending the Treaty . 
Mr President , I am very glad that Mrs Randzio @-@ Plath mentioned the very important context of our debate because up until now no other speaker has done so . 
the advent of the euro at the beginning of last year unleashed enormous competitive forces within European business which are being met by a merger wave of quite unprecedented proportions . 
for example , the figures for last year now show that the total value of mergers in the European area was EUR 1.4 trillion , which is seven times the level of merger activity at the peak of the last European merger boom in 1990 . 
this poses enormous challenges for competition policy , which I hope it will be able to meet because , for certain , many of those mergers are going to be designed to protect profit margins of the businesses from competition rather than merely to enhance productivity and make those businesses able to operate on a bigger scale . 
Commissioner Monti and his colleagues have a tremendous challenge ahead of them and our worries in the ELDR Group are that there should be no weakening in the thrust of competition policy either in the examination of mergers or the monitoring of restrictive practices . 
delegation to national authorities is all very well but we would emphasise what Mr von Wogau said in his report on the need for regular monitoring of national authorities to ensure that there is no slippage in the European element , and , particularly would ask the Commissioner to reassure us that there would be random checks on that . 
Mr President , in the limited time I have , I would like to express my support for the work carried out by all the rapporteurs and my agreement with many of the things which have been said here , in particular by Mr Jonckheer , who criticised the excessive gathering of information and the lack of transparency and socio @-@ economic balance in the granting of aid . 
I also agree with the criticism that no emphasis has been put on the implementation of Article 82 , especially when we are witnessing abusive conduct in a context of market concentration . 
as a Member for the Basque Country , I would like to express my total support for the implementation measures for fair competition in the market . 
I say this in case there is any doubt about the criticisms which we have directed at the Commission in general , and Mr Monti , in particular , for its persecution of the incentives to Basque companies and the fact that it considers them to be state aid . 
Mr President , Commissioner , competition is exactly what we need . 
in other words , we must succeed in linking the competition criteria that are necessary to the economy with those relating to managerial economics . 
I often have the impression , unlike the country I come from - former East Germany - where economic competitiveness is prized above all else and competitiveness relating to managerial economics is disregarded , that very often the reverse is the case ; society thinks almost exclusively in terms of managerial economics . 
I say that as an entrepreneur who has a vested interest in this . 
but a system cannot function in this way : it will only work if the two aspects go hand in hand . 
I will give you an example : the European Union was right to support the Grönitz steelworks in Brandenburg , although out of 5 000 jobs only 700 remained . 
but these are competitive jobs , for this steelworks is now the number two tool steel manufacturer in the Federal Republic of Germany . 
anyone who would jeopardise production at this steelworks on principle , by demanding the return of the aid that was granted at the time , would not just place the steelworks itself in jeopardy but also one of the region ' s employers that small and medium @-@ sized enterprises are , of course , dependent on too . 
it goes without saying that that is not what the European Union ' s competition policy is designed to achieve . 
if we want there to be competition then we must establish this link between the requirements of the national economy and the pre @-@ requisites of managerial economics . 
indeed that is the only way to build up regional economic circulation in the under @-@ developed regions that will protect people ' s social welfare and boost purchasing power . 
to that end , we must also make it our business to take more account of demand @-@ orientated economic policy as opposed to one focusing heavily on supply . 
Mr President , ever since I was elected to this Parliament in 1994 I have never witnessed a report which had such anti @-@ Irish sentiments and overtones as the Jonckheer report which we are debating today . 
I would like to quote verbatim from the report : " state aid per capita is highest in Italy , Germany and Ireland . 
Ireland clearly is in the lead when national and Community regional and social funds are put together . " 
I believe that the rapporteur is simply playing with figures . 
I find it difficult to understand how he can index regional and social funds into this mathematical equation . 
I should like to remind the Member that the European Union has agreed to the new regional aid guidelines for the period 2000 plus . 
this was merely an extension of the policy objectives to complete the internal market within Europe . 
regional disparities must be overcome if the internal market is to succeed and prosper . 
I welcome the fact that grant aid of 40 % and a top @-@ up of 15 % for SMEs for fixed investment will be permitted for companies setting up in Objective 1 regions in Europe post @-@ 2000 . 
I remind Mr Jonckheer that Irish companies or foreign companies in Ireland still have to cross two sea masses to reach the mainland European marketplace . 
no other Member State is at such a disadvantage . 
Mr President , the monopolies ' ban is the key element of functioning competition order in Europe . 
the Commission deemed the practical administration relating to the monitoring of the monopolies ' ban to be unsatisfactory , something I would wholeheartedly agree with . 
but opinion differs as to the solution . 
the Commission ' s proposal does not formally deviate from the monopolies ban but the upshot of this proposal is a transition from a ban with permit reservation to a permit with ban reservation . 
in other words , we are making the transition from the principle of banning to that of misuse . 
both I and other MEPs utterly reject such a drastic change of system . 
I do not accept that a practical transposition problem should give rise to changing the law . 
we would be changing the law to make it executable again , which is something I consider to be unacceptable . 
the Commission is giving up its monopoly on exemptions . 
competition restrictions are to be automatically exempted against the background of this planned system of legal exemption , insofar as the provisions of Article 81 ( 3 ) of the Treaty on European Union allow . 
the requirement to lodge applications in Brussels will be dropped ; in other words , the Commission will be completely in the dark in future . 
this is unacceptable to my mind . 
the Commission ' s programme is to be supplemented by enhanced follow @-@ up supervision of the national authorities and Member States ' courts . 
but if this takes place in the course of renationalisation then what we will have here is a patchwork quilt of competition policy . 
this is unacceptable in my view . 
it would weaken a key element of European policy . 
the change of system in European monopolies law that the European Commission is contemplating is high risk as far as competition policy is concerned . 
there are enough other options in the present system to safeguard open markets and free competition . 
in any case , the Commission ' s proposal refers back to old proposals that were put forward as long ago as the fifties and sixties . 
there was no majority for this at the time . 
since France laid a huge amount of emphasis on legal exemption at the time , it was damaged by concessions in agricultural policy . 
forty years on , this proposal has again been placed on the table and I am certain that it will create room for manoeuvre for the monopolies , to the detriment of Europe ' s consumers . 
I consider this to be unacceptable . 
Mr President , in this important debate on competition , I am speaking this morning with particular reference to Mr Langen ' s document on the Steel Aid Code . 
as the Court of Justice recognised in 1996 , the steel industry is particularly sensitive to competition @-@ related disturbances . 
indeed , several years ago , this was the conclusion of a report that I compiled on the strengths and weaknesses of the European steel sector . 
this is why it was justifiable to set up a system of aid to this sector with the aim of ensuring the survival of successful businesses , even if this was in contradiction of Article 4 of the ECSC Treaty . 
this indeed , is the aim of the sixth Steel Aid Code , but at the same time it is important to avoid any infringement of the conditions of competition and any serious disturbance of the markets , hence the importance of regulating such aid . 
it is therefore necessary to continue to limit state aid for research , development , environmental protection and cases of company closure . 
in the same category of ideas , it is essential that Member States fulfil their obligation to be accountable to the Commission for the aid granted to their steel companies . 
the Commission suggests shorter deadlines . 
I agree with this request . 
like the rapporteur , while I am pleased with the Commission report , nonetheless I deplore the fact that it does not cover all aspects of the aid . 
although the Steel Aid Code is expressed in a very clear way , the Commission has authorised granting steel companies aid which is not covered by the categories stipulated by the Code . 
in the interests of equality , either the Code must be applied or it must be modified . 
finally , and in conclusion , Mr President , with the expiry of the ECSC Treaty , the regulations will have to be reviewed since I think that the aid system will have to continue beyond 2002 , and in that case I am in favour of a Council regulation which will ensure security in this area . 
we therefore await , and I await , the European Commission ' s proposals on this matter . 
Mr President , I am also going to refer to the report by Mr Langen , which concerns aid to the steel industry . 
I agree with the rapporteur on two issues . 
firstly , I agree on the need to guarantee equal conditions for aid to all Member States and , secondly , on the need for transparency with regard to this aid . 
we agree with the rapporteur regarding his criticism of the fact that , despite the rules laid down in the sixth Steel Aid Code , the Commission has frequently authorised aid to companies which do not correspond to the categories in that Code . 
however , the thing that worries us most , Mr President , is the decrease in prices , by 30 % , owing to imports . 
the reason for this decrease is unfair competition from South Korea and Taiwan , in the case of steel , as a result of their different working conditions and conditions governing aid . 
orders in the steel industry and the ship @-@ building industry - we also spoke about this a while ago - have decreased drastically , resulting in a loss of jobs . 
I live in a region where the ship @-@ building industry now has very serious problems : Asturias . 
with global markets , we need global employment laws and global subsidies . 
I know this is difficult to achieve now , but if we do not achieve fair employment laws for all workers , here and elsewhere , and we do not secure equitable subsidies for all countries , here and elsewhere , it will be difficult to preserve jobs in Europe and outside it . 
Mr President , Commissioner , Director @-@ General , I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report : I welcome the Commission ' s open @-@ minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules , and to propose practical reform measures . 
I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau , who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification , indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken , and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion . 
the White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection , discussion , and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves , the judiciary , the Member States , and above all the SMEs concerned , that need to be clarified . 
competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy . 
however , it must be " europeanised " taking into account the principle of subsidiarity . 
I also welcome , therefore , the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual , without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility . 
I am in suspense as to how the discussions , which were broadly based , will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal . 
the Commission report confirms that , with the exception of Germany , state aid to businesses is increasing . 
the Commission finds this worrying only from the point of view of the conditions of competition . 
as far as we are concerned , we look at things from the point of view of the interests of the working classes . 
society gains nothing from these massive transfers of public funds to private business . 
take , for example , the car manufacturing sector , where subsidies and state aid of various sorts have increased by 24 % during the reference period . 
with what aim ? 
not to save jobs . 
all these firms have gone ahead with job cuts and even redundancies . 
not to improve working conditions , for in increasing production with fewer workers , working conditions are made worse . 
did these firms need state aid to survive ? 
no , car manufacturers have been making colossal profits for years . 
state aid is not only counterproductive because , as the Jonckheer report acknowledges , it gives rise to subsidy hunting with firms relocating from one country to another , but it is unacceptable because it allocates public monies to the enrichment of a handful of private shareholders . 
it is because the richest people are being favoured everywhere with state money that throughout Europe social protection is being reduced , public services are being abandoned , hospitals are being closed . 
in voting against the Jonckheer report , I wish to assert the need for another policy , to wit , ceasing all aid to private firms and utilising the money thereby saved to develop public services and recruit staff . 
Mr President , today ' s debate is extremely important because the principle of competition has probably been the cornerstone of the internal market . 
in accordance with the principle of competition , the legislation has implemented Articles 85 to 94 , competition policy in the strict sense , and the revision of all state aid and tax provisions which may affect competition . 
firstly , fiscal provisions of an indirect nature and recently , thanks to Commissioner Monti , there have been direct provisions , the code of good conduct in particular . 
this has worked fairly well , but , as in the famous film Casablanca ' time goes by ' and we must adapt the legislation we have been applying until now to the new circumstances . 
in this respect I have observed a significant consensus in all the interventions . 
firstly , it is necessary , in drawing up the legislation , to produce clear and complete rules . 
it is probably horrendous , especially in this particular raft of legislation , that there are confused rules , regulatory vacuums and rules that only lay down undefined legal concepts . 
this is all the worse - as is the case with the second part of this reform - when responsibility for implementing the legislation lies with national authorities . 
thirdly , it seems to me important that the Commission should play a role in resisting the temptation to create independent agencies which would distort the very essence of the Commission , in order to guarantee uniform application by international bodies . 
fourthly , and lastly - and this has already been mentioned - the international legal order has changed . 
we have seen this in the aborted Seattle Conference and we are now seeing it in the bilateral conferences with different regions or countries of the world . 
the principle of competition must now be universal in its application . 
Mr President , Commissioner Monti , there is much that is good in Mr Jonckheer ' s report on state aid for manufacturing industry and certain other sectors . 
first of all the report reveals Parliament ' s single @-@ minded determination to reduce state aid to ensure that the internal market functions flawlessly . 
many of the report ' s conclusions , however , are cause for concern , at least for our group . 
for example , the fact that the amount and level of state aid calculated on a per capita basis vary considerably from Member State to Member State reveals the need for surveys such as this . 
aid that is based on the self @-@ seeking ambitions of a nation gives companies unfair advantages , thus distorting competition and leading to an ineffective , uneconomic division of Europe ' s meagre resources . 
the form the aid takes is important . 
forms of state aid that require an effort from the beneficiary are to be supported . 
for example , state guarantees , on which the Commission has just publicised its position , must naturally be considered state aid , but they are , in my opinion , a better option than granting aid directly to companies . 
the report on competition policy further stresses the Commission ' s confidence in hard and fast rules instead of putting the emphasis on economic arguments regarding efficiency , which affects competitiveness . 
the European economy will never achieve the level of competitiveness desired if we do not show we trust in the markets . 
if competition policy is to be made subordinate to the aims of social and environmental policy , real efficiency and economic growth will remain just a dream . 
competition policy has to be seen as part of the whole of the economy and it must be assessed with reference to trade policy and non @-@ material rights : we should not just be emphasising its social dimension . 
the aims of social policy can be best realised through stronger economic growth , not by making compromises with regard to decisions on competition policy . 
Mr Rapkay ' s report also emphasises the importance of the international dimension with regard to competition law . 
in my opinion , it would be good if we could achieve consensus at the international level regarding certain basic principles of competition law . 
aiming instead at harmonised minimum standards will easily lead to a situation where we leap over the lowest hurdle and end up with the lowest common denominator , which will water down all the aims of competition policy . 
Mr President , Mr Monti , the reform of competition rules calls for a commitment by the European Union , not only in the light and as a consequence of changes which have taken place through the years , but also with a forward @-@ looking view to the Union ' s enlargement . 
I would like to thank the rapporteur , Mr von Wogau , for his commitment and I welcome his thoughts . 
moreover , I would like to say that I appreciate the remarks and observations that Professor Tesauro , Chairman of the Italian Competition Authority , sent me , and which I am sure Mr Monti will take into due account with a strong sense of collaboration . 
our real concern is undoubtedly to initiate further liberalisation of the market , and , above all , to achieve consistency between the different national markets . as things stand , there are considerable differences between them which come to the fore if we compare the English , Italian and French markets . 
there is a large degree of state protectionism in the French market which is not found in the English market and is only present to an extremely limited extent in Italy . 
another issue concerns the economies of countries involved in enlargement , which may run the risk of remaining assisted economies for ever more if provision is not made for gradual adjustment . 
in my opinion , we should also create a threshold below which two significant components which characterise our economic structure should be placed : small and medium @-@ sized businesses , which bind the European economy together , and social protection , which Europe has always guaranteed to the weakest parts of the economy . 
safeguarding the social function of the market is what makes the difference between free trade , pure and simple , and a system for improving people ' s quality of life . 
a point to consider regarding the new rules concerns the economy of the outermost regions and islands , all of which must be protected . 
we ought therefore to consider creating two focal points of an external market by instigating profitable relations with Russia and the Mediterranean countries , precisely so that their economies become less peripheral . 
I hope - and I thank Mr Monti for this - that the new rules will reflect as many aspects of economic policy as possible and that their social function will be guaranteed . 
Mr President , competition is at the heart of the European internal market policy and is also its driving force . 
a free and open market can only exist by the grace of competition , marked by clear , uniform rules . 
in his report , Karl von Wogau manages to capture this very well . 
but Europe is changing . 
the economies are growing , we are enlarging to 25 @-@ 30 Member States . 
the European Commission will become overburdened if it pursues its current policy . 
it is therefore necessary to modernise competition policy . 
this is not in question . 
having said this , I still have concerns about the proposed decentralisation . 
how will the Commission , as keeper of the Treaties , guarantee that decisions are taken uniformly in matters of competition in London , Palermo , Helsinki and , soon , Budapest and Ankara ? 
this is necessary if legal inequality is to be prevented , and issues of competition will gravitate towards the court where the most lenient judgements are given . 
it is not enough to say that , in the Member States , there is already 40 years ' worth of experience . 
in the Netherlands , the competition authority is still in its infancy . 
this country has a very small market which , unfortunately , is often at the same time defined as the relevant market . 
this in contrast to Germany , where a very experienced Kartellamt is exercising its powers within a gigantic market . 
the European Commission ' s belief that , in all quarters of the Union , legislation will , almost as a matter of course , be interpreted in the same way , is what , within catholic circles , we term " foolhardy , " and this is not allowed . 
uniformity needs to be worked on . 
think of specialist , national courts with the option of direct appeal to a special competition court at the European Court . 
this special court in Luxembourg is necessary in order to build up broad expertise . 
moreover , due to the immense economic and social interests involved , we cannot afford to wait for a judgement to be pronounced two years after the event , as is now quite normal . 
what is the Commissioner ' s opinion of this ? 
I would like to finish off by making an important point for small and medium @-@ sized businesses . 
in order to grant small and medium @-@ sized companies greater security , the European Commission itself needs to draw up an exemption regulation for small and medium @-@ sized businesses so that , alongside vertical exemptions , horizontal exemptions will also be possible . 
through cooperation , small , independent firms must be able to stand up to the large chains . 
it cannot be the aim of European competition policy to make life impossible for small businesses . 
moreover , regarding these small businesses , we will have to consider whether it would not be better to apply a system with a prior warning built in , the yellow card , instead of an immediate red card , which will be a large fine and will threaten the company ' s very existence . 
Mr President , being the last to speak gives me the privilege , Commissioner , of telling you that the majority of this House supports your initiative and has expressed a total , and , I believe , justified , confidence in you at the helm of this boat . 
but we all want to be oarsmen on it . we all belong on the same boat and want to row with you . 
I therefore believe it to be absolutely necessary to establish an interinstitutional dialogue so that we might reach a good conclusion and put all the finishing touches to this essential reform . 
the many ideas which have been expressed here could be put into three broad categories . 
firstly , there is the concern that some have expressed , in particular Mrs Randzio @-@ Plath , President of the Committee on Economic Affairs , of whether this new system of legal exception is absolutely compatible with the Treaty . 
I share that concern and I believe that this issue should be addressed . 
secondly , we have the issue of companies ' legal certainty . 
it is true , Commissioner , that the Commission is not a machine for manufacturing legal certainty . 
we all agree on this . 
but it is nonetheless true - and this has been repeated from all sections of this House - that the European industrial fabric is composed of small and medium @-@ sized businesses , and that the Commission often plays the role of auctoritas , of legitimising the nature of the internal market . 
on this point I will give my opinion on something which Mr Karas said . 
there have only been nine rejections . 
but here I would like to call on my experience as a lawyer . 
how often has a lawyer with two companies and one project , in the face of a Commission guideline given ex ante , changed that project in order for it to comply with the competition rules ! 
this is therefore an aspect to be considered . 
thirdly , we have the problem of the uniform application of Community law . 
in this respect , the excellent speech by Mrs Thyssen cannot be improved upon . 
I believe that biodiversity is good , as is cultural diversity , but not diversity in the application of the law with regard to the essential core of the internal market , that is to say , competition law . 
here improvements should be made . 
only in certain countries , Germany for example , is there specialised jurisdiction . 
perhaps this is a promising avenue to explore , but we must also explore others . 
Commissioner , it is impossible to overstate the importance of this reform . 
it transcends competition , it transcends the cohesion of the internal market . I believe that it profoundly affects the meaning of European integration , the meaning of the legitimacy of European integration . 
therefore , Commissioner , we are relying on this interinstitutional dialogue to put the finishing touches to a reform which we are all hoping for and which we believe will lead us to a successful conclusion under your direction and with our cooperation . 
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I heartily congratulate the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the entire European Parliament for the great deal of interest shown in competition @-@ related subjects . 
in my opinion , Mr President , this joint debate fully bears this out . 
we have heard some very thorough observations which both concern the philosophy of economic policy and are important for the institutional order . 
our common aim is to reform and strengthen competition policy , a pillar of the social market economy and of European construction . 
the guiding thread running through all the aspects of the reform of competition policy , which we shall have the opportunity to address together , aims to ensure more effective protection of competition , reduce the bureaucratic burden weighing down businesses and take decision @-@ making processes closer to the European people . 
I , personally , would sincerely like to thank Mr von Wogau for his commitment in examining the dossier on the White Paper and for the quality of his report . 
I would like to divide the considerations raised during this debate on the von Wogau report into four groups . I do not consider these considerations to be criticisms of the Commission , but , on the contrary , fundamental contributions , since justified concerns have been expressed that we both want to overcome . 
the groups are : the efficiency of the rules , the risk of renationalisation , consistent application of the rules and legal certainty . I will take these very quickly one at a time . 
efficiency : I am convinced that this reform will strengthen the protection of competition within the single market rather than weaken it . 
the proposed system will improve the protection of competition , primarily because it will allow the Commission to concentrate its action on the most serious restrictions , also because it will involve national and competition authorities to a greater degree in stamping out infringements , and lastly in that it will allow victims of infringements to have direct recourse to national judges , whose mission is to protect the rights of individuals . 
the question of renationalisation : first of all , although it is not really necessary , I would like to point out and stress , several times if I may , that the White Paper does not affect mergers or State aid in the slightest - we are not looking for devolution in these areas - but that , as far as Regulation 17 is concerned , there is a risk of renationalisation . 
of course we have pondered this issue , and we are still studying it extremely carefully , and this is also thanks to the concerns you have voiced . 
at the end of the day , I honestly do not believe that this fear is justified . 
the Commission proposal accords the Commission a central role in establishing guidelines on competition policy . 
the reform does not entail any reduction in the Commission ' s activities , but requires them to focus on the most important dossiers . 
the reform will lead to a gradual development - I stress this because I was particularly taken with this term , used by Mrs Randzio @-@ Plath , and , moreover , I fully agree with it - of European competition culture . 
so , the reform will lead to the various national competition cultures being transplanted and taking root in the European competition culture - where today various small plants thrive , and they are certainly not all the same . 
the fifteen sets of national provisions will gradually be abandoned , permitting greater use of Community law , which a higher number of protagonists will be able to apply . 
allow me to emphasise that this is communitisation , not renationalisation , of competition law . 
the question of consistent application : the risk of inconsistent application of competition rules must be borne in mind , but I do not believe that it should be exaggerated . 
as with many other provisions of the Treaty , Articles 81 ( 1 ) and 82 have , after all , been applied for decades by national authorities and judges , and I do not feel that this has created serious problems . 
in a directly applicable exception system , consistency will depend firstly on the degree of clarity of the material rules . 
the Commission will make every effort to define the legislative framework , both through general provisions and through its decision @-@ making practice . 
secondly , we will need to set efficient mechanisms in place to prevent disputes , and the White Paper sets out mechanisms for information and consultation . 
in this respect , I would like to say something about the excellent idea put forward by Mrs Riis @-@ Jørgensen and Mr Huhne of monitoring implementation . 
this then is the idea of monitoring implementation . 
I must say that I find this a very good idea that we will probably take up . 
though we have a high respect for the work of national competition authorities and so on , it is evident that we will watch very carefully how EC law is applied by national authorities and courts . 
that is why the Commission wants to keep the right to withdraw a case from a national competition authority in the event of incorrect application . 
this goes at least some way towards alleviating your concerns , Mrs Peijs . 
concerning Mr Evans ' point regarding the implications for businesses , it is important that the cost @-@ benefit analysis should be seriously conducted . 
the purpose of publishing the White Paper is , after all , to collect comments from businesses as well as from other sources . 
we have received many excellent observations and contributions which give us the material to make a cost @-@ benefit assessment for business . 
we will examine all that material carefully before making a legislative proposal for a new regulation . 
there is one point about the impact for firms which is of great importance . 
this was raised by Mrs Thyssen , Mrs Peijs and Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi : the issue of SMEs . 
many speakers have underlined this . 
the Commission is paying particular attention to legal certainty for SMEs . 
we are proposing a system which considerably improves legal certainty for SMEs . 
why ? 
is this simply a political gesture ? 
no . 
in the system we propose reforming our substantive rules in such a way that most SMEs will be covered by block exemption regulations , as in the field of vertical restraints . 
most SMEs have in fact less than 30 % of the market share . 
we have a de minimis notice which contains a declaration that since SMEs are not involved in market dominance they are not normally subject to the strict prohibition under Article 81 ( 1 ) . 
we are working on further block exemptions and guidelines which will all take into account the particular situation of SMEs , and our White Paper on modernisation will also improve the situation of SMEs , first by eliminating the bureaucracy resulting from the present notification system , and secondly , by making Article 81 ( 3 ) directly applicable , which will benefit SMEs in particular . 
the fourth group is legal certainty . 
Mr Evans , legal certainty is , of course - and I am the first to acknowledge this - important for businesses , not just for the legal professions , although the latter do play an extremely important role in the construction of Europe . 
legal certainty is important for businesses : this is a subject , the importance of which the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi , emphasised in her last intervention - and I am very grateful to her for the way she always takes the widest interest in subjects regarding the single market , including , in this case , competition . 
( FR ) Mrs Thyssen also referred to the matter of legal privilege for company lawyers . 
let me simply remind you that the Court of Justice pronounced a ruling on this in 1982 , as you know better than I. This ruling remains valid and there is nothing to justify any reconsideration thereof . 
the White Paper requires only a single aspect of the issue to be re @-@ examined : the exchange of confidential information . 
the guarantees which companies must be given are currently under discussion . 
( it ) I shall now quickly turn , Mr President , to Mr Rapkay ' s report , and I would like to thank him sincerely for the quality of his work and for the broad endorsement given to the Commission ' s XXVIIIth Annual Report on Competition Policy . 
we share the same basic views but the Rapkay report lays emphasis on several points that we shall need to consider very carefully . 
I will mention only two , in order to be brief . 
the first is greater transparency . 
Parliament knows how important we all consider the question of transparency in competition policy , as I did right from the moment I had my hearing , on 1 September , in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs . 
as regards the international aspect of competition policy , I can confirm , Mr Rapkay , that the Commission is willing to provide Parliament with a report on this subject , to which Mrs Randzio @-@ Plath has also drawn our attention . 
we have very satisfactory bilateral relations with the relevant American , Canadian and Japanese authorities as regards competition policy , and we are working to ensure that competition is treated as a separate topic within the World Trade Organisation . 
Mr Jonckheer , I would like to thank you just as warmly for your report on the seventh survey on State aid in the European Union . 
I will not talk about codecision here , but this certainly does not mean I do not consider it important . 
it has major institutional implications which obviously go beyond the specific area of competition ; I am therefore not qualified to give an opinion , and this is obviously a matter for the broader context of the Intergovernmental Conference . 
with regard to your suggestions , Mr Jonckheer , you already know that my staff , who , although short @-@ handed as usual , are fortunately highly qualified , are working hard to produce the register of State aids and the State aids ' scoreboard ' . 
I am awaiting with great interest the results of the eighth survey , which , according to the scheduled timeframe , should be being drawn up by the staff now , in January , and for adoption by the Commission in March 2000 , to see whether the latest trends are confirmed . 
Mr Jonckheer , Mrs Thyssen and Mr Gemelli raised the issue of the state of preparation of the candidate countries in terms of competition in general and of State aid . 
I can only say very briefly , that we are actively working with them on a practical level : they are making preparations , they now all have competition laws and are setting up the relevant authorities . 
I can also say , in respect of your concerns on energy and especially on the environment - which , as you know , I share - that we are concluding the review of the organisation of environmental State aid . 
in connection with the issue of State aid , I would also like to take up one of the points raised by Mrs Riis @-@ Jørgensen , among others regarding repayment of illegal aid . 
in April 1999 , the Commission adopted new Rules of Procedure which introduced specific rules on repayment . 
in the near future - and I can assure you of this - you will see just how seriously we mean to take these rules . 
finally , Mr President , I would like to thank Mr Langen warmly for his report , which , although geared more towards a specific sector , is a valuable contribution . 
I would like to say that , as we know , the Commission report on State aid to the steel industry does not include individual decisions made under the exception procedure , pursuant to Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty , but addresses decisions which are not covered by the code on aid for the steel sector . 
in respect of future provisions on aid for the steel sector , which will come into force in July 2002 , we will ensure that strict discipline continues to be applied , and the industry itself now agrees on the need for this . 
when we have finalised our proposal on the new rules and decided on the most suitable legal form , I will be happy to present our viewpoint to you . 
so , Mr President , I will walk away from this debate , for which I am very grateful to Parliament , in the knowledge that we have the European Parliament ' s intellectual and political support , which appears to come from all sides of the House , for competition policy , its basic appreciation for the work the Commission is carrying out and its confidence in our ability to continue to deliver in the future . 
I am especially grateful for all of this . we will continue the interinstitutional dialogue opened with the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs , and , at a more general level , with Parliament . 
in this regard , I liked your term , Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi : we must all pull together , preferably in the same direction . 
competition is not an end in itself , as Mr Rapkay rightly pointed out , but it plays an extremely important role in European integration . 
as Mr von Wogau said at the start of the debate , at the end of the day competition is not an abstract concept : it is in the public interest and forms the basis of the social market economy . 
I would also like to say that competition policy will play a valuable social , as well as economic , role in the European integration process , as it has done in the past . 
thank you , Commissioner Monti . 
the joint debate is closed . 
the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. 
protection under criminal law of the Union 's financial interests 
the next item is the report ( A5 @-@ 0002 / 2000 ) by Mrs Theato , on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control , containing Parliament ' s recommendations to the Commission on introducing protection under criminal law of the Union ' s financial interests . 
Mr President , year after year we learn , mainly from the European Court of Auditors ' test reports , that money is lost to the budget of the European Union on account of misdemeanours ranging from wastage , mismanagement , and irregularities to suspected blatant fraud . 
for some time now , these abuses have meant that Parliament has been called upon to initiate measures that should serve to protect the European taxpayer ' s money , which , when all is said and done , is what sustains the Union ' s budget . 
particular attention in this respect should be given to combating fraud , to detecting it , punishing those guilty of it and preventing it from happening . 
creating UCLAF by means of the Task Force and setting up the anti @-@ fraud office OLAF were important steps , as was the regulation on protecting the financial interests of the Community and on local monitoring . 
the Union can only impose sanctions in the field pertaining to administrative law when cases are exposed . 
so far , efforts on the part of the Commission to ask for improperly obtained money to be returned only had limited success . 
it is for the Member States to undertake criminal measures . 
since there is often overlap between the two legal angles and cross @-@ border violations against the Union budget are on the increase - they are also committed by those involved in organised crime - it is unclear as to where the responsibility lies amongst the Member States . 
then there are differences between the national legal requirements of the individual Member States , together with protracted or even unfulfilled requests for mutual assistance in law enforcement . 
what is more , the agreement on the protection of financial interests and the two subsequent protocols signed by the European Council in 1995 did nothing to change this . 
for it to enter into force , it must be ratified by all 15 Member States . 
after five years only four have done so . 
this state of deadlock , which threatens to undermine the credibility of the Union , has inspired Parliament to initiate the setting @-@ up of a European Public Prosecutor ' s Office . 
there is no intention whatsoever to create a transnational criminal law and judicial authority , rather the aim is to equip the Union with specific instruments for the protection of its financial interests , that is whilst upholding the principle of subsidiarity . 
we are giving new life to this idea with this report and call upon the Commission to present legislative proposals that will enable this goal to be realised . 
the concerns of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , as articulated in its position , together with those of the Committee on Citizens ' Freedoms and Rights , Justice and Home Affairs , will also be taken full account of in this process . 
we would like to make two recommendations arising from the establishment of OLAF and which should safeguard its operational and legal efficiency , transparency , and the protection of the rights of individuals . 
in addition , we need - and this is my first recommendation - a legislative act that includes those offences which are to the detriment of the Union ' s financial interests , and in which main principles are firmly established . 
I support the proposed deadline for the Commission being 30 September in a proposed amendment . 
the second recommendation relates to criminal proceedings . 
the Commission ought - and I have also amended this deadline to 31 May 2000 - to propose a legislative act on the establishment of an independent body which has institutional links with the Commission , for coordinating and supervising the legal investigative body OLAF . 
the existing monitoring committee can only monitor the independence of the Director of the agency . 
the proposal for a legislative act of this kind should contain an independent statute for this body and define its tasks , which are confined to inquiries and criminal prosecution undertaken by OLAF into activities which are to the detriment of the Union ' s financial interests , and to OLAF ' s relationship with the national authorities . 
there is no question of this influencing the administration of justice in the Member States . 
the Court of Justice is to monitor the legality of the legislative acts . 
in addition , we call upon the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference to take up debate on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor ' s Office for the protection of the financial interests of the Union , where possible on the basis of the now widely recognised study compiled by well @-@ known experts , the so @-@ called corpus juris , and of the feasibility studies that have subsequently appeared . 
further support for this proposal is also to be found in the second report of the so @-@ called Five Wise Men . 
the Commission , Mr Barnier , Mr Vitorino and several Member States are equally receptive to the idea . 
I call upon you , ladies and gentlemen , to vote in favour of this report , which the Committee on Budgetary Control adopted with a large majority . 
we can set another example here , to the effect that Parliament is taking action to prevent mismanagement and in particular , fraud , and to mete out punishment where necessary . 
Mr President , I am happy to take the floor in the debate on this report and I congratulate Mrs Theato . 
I believe that this is a report for which cooperation between committees has worked very well , and the result , which we have received today , is moderate and thoughtful in a very delicate area . 
this moderation and thoughtfulness is particularly necessary in the implementation of Article 280 ( 4 ) . 
if we had to give a prize for the article which was most difficult to understand , least clear and most confused - however you like to put it - the competition would be very hard fought . the Treaty is a collection of complex articles . 
at the same time , it is an especially delicate issue because it deals with the protection of the Community ' s financial interests , as Mrs Theato has explained very well . 
we are all aware - and this Parliament has been the steadfast champion in this respect - of the need to protect the financial interests of the Community . but be careful . 
the conclusions of the Theato report safeguard them perfectly . 
therefore , in my capacity as president of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , and , of course , as an MEP , I hope that a large majority of this House will support this report and that it will be well implemented by the Commission . 
Mr President , this , as Mrs Theato said , is a critical report . 
it is a report that has been proposed by the Committee on Budgetary Control and it is an own @-@ initiative report . 
one of the reasons why we were very keen to bring this forward was because , whether we like it or not , the European Union has a reputation for fraud and mismanagement . 
it is sometimes exaggerated but there it is . 
we need to do something about it . 
some of the measures we have put in place in the past have not been honoured by some of the Member States - and let us not forget that the Member States are responsible for implementing about 80 % of the EU budget . 
a lot of them have not signed up to or not ratified the Convention on the Protection of Financial Interests , and therefore it was clear that something more radical needed to be done . 
we need to take this responsibility seriously . 
we need to be able to prosecute people who commit fraud against the European Union . 
the question is : who prosecutes ? 
that is where we really get into difficulty . 
whose responsibility is it when you are dealing with a body that crosses so many frontiers ? 
we need also to be sensitive to the concerns of Member States . 
the proposal to set up a European public prosecutor service is a very sensitive one . 
we are all aware that an all @-@ out federal approach and a situation where a European judicial authority takes precedence over the national judicial authorities is a step too far for some people . 
but the discussion needs to begin and we are therefore calling on the IGC to start discussions . 
of most importance to Parliament , as the guardian of the budget of the European Union , is how to deal with people who work within the European Union institutions . 
at a time when we are looking at the whole reform process it is critical that we send the right signal . 
people need to understand that if they commit fraud they will be prosecuted , and that is not the case at the moment . 
the whole question as to whether we have the legal authority to do this has been outlined by Mrs Palacio . 
I should like to make clear that my group is going to propose an amendment deleting the detail of how the Commission should tackle this question . 
we are aware that it is a delicate debate . 
we know that the Commission may perhaps need the scope to negotiate a situation which would be acceptable to all parties . 
can I just make it clear that we have no commitment to a corpus juris here , no commitment to a federal European public prosecutor . 
but there is a definite commitment to change the status quo which is totally unacceptable . 
Mr President , I would like to start by congratulating Mrs Theato on her report . 
I think it is a first @-@ class report which will , for the most part , be supported by my group . 
I just have the distinct feeling that she would have preferred to take it a little further at this stage . 
judging from the discussions held over the past five or six months , this could well be the case . 
we all know that , in 1995 , it was agreed that the Union ' s financial interests should be given better protection under criminal law . 
but the Member States failed to cooperate . 
this is just a political fact about which little can be done at present , I think . 
it is now possible , on the basis of Article 280 of the Treaty , that the Commission will take new initiatives , and I would like to suggest to the Commission that it do this at the earliest opportunity . 
unlike the previous speaker , who has now disappeared , my group is strongly in favour of a European Public Prosecutor . 
my colleague Jan @-@ Kees Wiebenga , will undoubtedly take this point further because he has already published a report on the same subject matter . 
I think what we need is , at European level , to come up with exact definitions of fraud and irregularity as quickly as possible . 
I myself have been involved in the committee of inquiry on transit traffic . 
one of the major problems in this area was that if you do something wrong , especially when it comes to revenue of the European Union , then this will be termed an irregularity in one country and a crime in another . 
this , I thought , is no longer permissible , certainly not at the moment . 
I would like to make one general point on politics . 
whatever we may say about the European elections , the low turnout is a fact . 
we can improve on this by punishing crime in Europe quickly , and this must be done at European level . 
Mr President , I too would like to thank the rapporteur . 
Mrs Theato ' s report may help to restore confidence in European institutions . 
I believe that is something we are all desperately in need of , bearing in mind the results of the last European elections and of the level of turnout . 
yet , every year we have the same problem . 
the Court of Auditors publishes its report , which criticises the Member States on account of various incidences of fraud . so far , however , the European institutions have not had sufficient means at their disposal to take vigorous action here , to ensure that implementation actually takes place and that matters are remedied . 
it is precisely this process that undermines confidence every year . 
I believe that Mrs Theato ' s report and her proposal can help to reverse this very process and to make clear that the European institutions take steps to ensure that European money is employed in a targeted manner and that no fraud is perpetrated here . 
it is important that after the first step , which has already been taken , i.e. forming OLAF from UCLAF - an independent institution - we now take the second step and create a legal framework for OLAF , in order that OLAF too might operate within a secure legal framework . 
we will need the European Public Prosecutor ' s Office for this , which will see to it that there are clear legal guarantees , also for suspects . 
having said all that , I must say that unfortunately , my group will not be voting for your report as a united front . 
I hope that the debate will convince a few more people . 
unfortunately , however , people still have too many misgivings to the effect that this will be the kind of European institution that undermines subsidiarity . 
but I will do what I can to see that Mrs Theato ' s report receives more support . 
Mr President , we are basically in favour of the resolution that has been tabled , even if we think that this can only be interpreted as an invitation by Parliament to the Council to amend the Treaties , so that effective protection under criminal law of the Union ' s financial interests can be guaranteed . 
the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor ' s Office and the definition of offences common to all countries of the Union is doubtless a good idea , but it is impossible to consider putting this into practice without having first introduced a European legal system . 
indeed , we are talking about criminal law , the area where resistance that national States put up to communitisation is , and will be , fierce . 
indeed , it is unthinkable that we could put in place substantial and procedural legal regulations solely for one sector - that of the protection of financial interests - without first having created a European legal system . 
reading the precise and comprehensive explanations in the Theato report makes you realise just how many problems still need to be resolved and what these problems are . 
in any case , this idea must be encouraged , and it will doubtless be during this attempt to protect financial interests that we realise that we need to include a Community corpus iuris in the Treaties . 
on behalf of my group , but also personally , I hope that the vital financial spirit of the Union will pave the way for the creation of a European legal system which respects citizens ' rights and guarantees , which is to say a legal system that will raise guarantees to the acceptable levels hitherto unseen in many States . 
therefore , on behalf of my group , I would like to say that we support the Theato report ; I nevertheless think that this is essentially a subject that should be included on the IGC agenda . 
Mr President , Mrs Theato ' s report on the protection of the European Union ' s financial interests proposes centralising criminal proceedings by initially creating a European Public Prosecutor . 
this proposal is radically opposed to the spirit of the current system in which the criminal law and criminal proceedings that lie at the heart of the national legal systems must come under the sovereignty of each nation and lie within the exclusive competence of each state . 
but the idea of a European Public Prosecutor , on the other hand , aims in the long term to confine the national states to a subordinate role in these matters . 
moreover , this proposal is liable to set off a chain reaction of totally unforeseen reforms . 
according to the Theato report , the European Public Prosecutor is needed , in particular , in order to better support the inquiries of the anti @-@ fraud office , OLAF . 
at the same time , however , we see from the van Hulten report under discussion today that the European Public Prosecutor should in turn be supervised by a European Union court . 
in this way , a small European reform may hide a medium @-@ sized one , and a medium @-@ sized one may hide a large one . 
not to mention that the large one may hide a gigantic one , as the very next thing we will see is a proposal for a European criminal law and then , why not a European Minister of Justice , supervised by an extension of the powers of the European Parliament ? 
I therefore feel we must carefully consider the balance of power that we are in danger of upsetting if we put forward this type of reform , which appears to be quite specific . 
in the final analysis , we feel that proposals such as the proposal for a European Public Prosecutor demonstrate an inability to conceive of a Europe in anything other than a centralised and hierarchical form , organised around a superstate . 
the Union for a Europe of Nations Group , on the other hand , wishes to see a polycentric Europe with nations linked in a network . 
and such a network could take the form of improved coordination between national public prosecution authorities , for example , and the creation , if necessary , of national teams specialising in offences involving Community finances . 
so the legal framework , Mr President , is already in place . 
it is fine , in principle . 
it need only be fine @-@ tuned . 
Mr President , Mrs Theato is proposing institutional revolution for a twofold reason . 
public opinion , although indifferent to 20 million unemployed and thousands of mad cows , is now supposed to be worried about the fraud endangering financial interests and these two reasons are supposed to justify a twofold solution : a European criminal code with crimes against the Community and a European Prosecutor @-@ General . 
Mrs Theato probably forgot to include a European prison now that we have the FBI , the European police , in the form of OLAF . 
all this would be established by two regulations , one for the Public Prosecutor and another for the criminal code . the regulations would be adopted pursuant to Article 280 of the Treaty , i.e. based on secondary law , whose characteristic feature is that it makes any sort of secondary shift of emphasis possible . 
and indeed there is a twofold shift . 
firstly , the classic Eurofederalist ideological shift , a single market , a single VAT , a single diplomatic service , a single army and now a single criminal code and a single public prosecutor . 
all this to combat fraud worth less than EUR 1 billion , while disregarding the tens of billions of euros lost due to the Generalised System of Preferences , free trade areas , customs presents to Chiquita and the billions lost to the fourth resource , GDP , as a result of the budgetary rationing pact . 
next we have the Puritan shift : the Teutonic Europe of the North , the Europe of the Lutherans , Calvinists and Quakers , wishes to inflict its moral order on us . 
basically , the more we lose our grip on morals , the more we tighten our grip on our wallet . 
Mr President , it is essential for there to be effective protection under criminal law of the financial interests of the European Union , more so these days than there used to be . 
the fraud and corruption scandals of the past have had a profoundly damaging effect on the confidence of Europe ' s citizens . 
the credibility of the efforts we make here in Parliament to employ our finances properly stands and falls with the efforts we make to deal with such scandals and prevent them from arising in the future . 
this does not just mean administrative changes but also structural changes ; in other words we must create instruments which are actually capable of affording protection under criminal law . 
the Intergovernmental Conference 2000 will provide the appropriate forum for discussing this . 
now it is , of course , possible to take the view that criminal law and criminal proceedings law are intrinsically matters pertaining to the law of the Member States and it is quite unthinkable that they should be governed by the principle of subsidiarity . 
there is no doubt that I myself am one of the advocates of this principle and one of those who oppose any further extension of competences at European level . 
when it comes to the demands made on the Intergovernmental Conference agenda , it is the call for there to be clear delimitation of competences that should take centre stage . 
now that is not a contradiction , since the demand for an instrument of criminal law and criminal proceedings law , as detailed in Recommendations I and II of the report , is actually about taking action in the EU ' s own interests , which , as far as that goes , does not damage the legal interests of the Member States ; on the contrary , it protects them , at least indirectly . 
the compatibility with the various national systems of law , as confirmed by experts , shows that criminal law is another area where Europe has a great deal in common , for example where the significance of the offences we have been discussing here is concerned . 
taking these aspects into account , I consider it appropriate that we create a framework of this kind , as proposed , and I also consider it necessary to the further development of OLAF . 
Mr President , will a European Public Prosecutor be able to abolish football fraud involving EU funds ? 
I do not believe so . 
on the other hand , we can go a long way using the existing tools . 
an alternative to the European Public Prosecutor could be Eurojust , as proposed at the last Summit . 
in the way it is structured , Eurojust should correspond to Europol and support investigations into crimes . 
it is just such practical cooperation there is a need for . 
OLAF , Europol and the Treaty on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters should be used fully and , when the Fraud Convention from 1995 is at long last ratified in the Member States , we can also achieve a lot with this . 
I nonetheless agree with the rapporteur that it is quite unacceptable that most Member States should still not have ratified this Agreement . 
it is simply too bad , and I can well understand why people are becoming impatient and demanding that we have a common European Public Prosecutor ' s Office instead . 
however , it would be quite a mammoth task to establish such an Office . 
it is , after all , only the most serious crimes which would have consequences under criminal law . 
ninety per cent of cases would be disciplinary matters concerning negligence or incompetence . 
instead , there is a need for proper internal control and the ability to sack people more easily . 
we should alter the staff regulations and disciplinary procedures and , especially , change our practice . 
at the moment , Article 52 of the staff regulations concerning dismissal on the grounds of gross negligence is never used . 
should we not make a point of cleaning up our own act and putting our own house in order before we plunge into constructing grand new institutions ! 
Mr President , we all want to do something about combating European fraud . 
but the question is now : is the European Union doing anything about it as well ? 
the answer to this is that we know very little about this . 
the Tampere Summit was about combating crime . 
everyone was supposedly pleased about it but , in reality , we have made little progress . 
there is no European anti @-@ fraud legislation in force because the Member States , as was stated before , have not ratified the treaty texts submitted . 
so a great deal has to be done in this area . 
and what exactly should be done ? 
two things , and Mrs Theato ' s report clearly spells these out . 
firstly , the same penalty clauses regarding European fraud must apply in all Member States of the European Union . 
so , unification in this small area . 
secondly , we should indeed set up a European Public Prosecutor ' s Office with two tasks , firstly to assist the national public prosecutors , helping bring criminal proceedings in European fraud cases and , secondly , to supervise Europol and OLAF in a judicial sense because these are two criminal investigation services which can operate at the moment without any judicial supervision . 
the European Public Prosecutor ' s Office is nothing to be afraid of . I feel there is a lot of scaremongering going on . 
it is , in fact , something very positive . just like Europol . 
Europol , involving police cooperation , does not rank above the national police forces , but is there for the purpose of exchanging information between police forces . 
this is exactly the task which a small , limited , European Public Prosecutor ' s Office should carry out , not just at the criminal investigation stage , but also at the prosecution stage . 
Parliament supports this . 
the Committee of Wise Men supports this . 
I urge the Council of Ministers and the European Commission to do the same . 
Mr President , I want to concentrate on the issue of corpus juris . 
I would very much like to support what Mrs Morgan said on this issue . 
corpus juris is something that was set up without any kind of public debate or public participation . 
the idea of a European Public Prosecutor on the continental inquisitorial model with overriding jurisdiction throughout EU territories would have a major impact on the traditional systems both in Ireland and the UK . 
the idea of a single criminal code and the European Public Prosecutor is something which Member States have a right to be informed about . 
indeed when the plan was initially drawn up they said it would be restricted to cases of fraud against the EU budget . 
but when corpus juris was actually launched in 1977 in San Sebastian - to a very select audience of 140 jurists , with no media invited - the President of the European Parliament at the time , Mr Gil @-@ Robles Gil @-@ Delgado , said that he considered it embryonic and that the intention was to extend EU competence in criminal matters to all areas of criminal activity . 
we need a public debate on this . 
we need the Member States and the citizens in the Member States to be properly informed . 
the issue of the threat to the traditional legal system in Ireland and the UK needs to be addressed . 
there needs to be much more openness and transparency on this issue than there has been to date . 
it is unacceptable that something like this has been foisted on the Member States of the EU without any proper public debate . 
Mr President , on behalf of the Italian Radical Members , I abstained on this text in the Committee on Budgetary Control , because I share the concerns that have been voiced , in such an authoritative way , by the representative of another legal culture which is certainly important : common law . 
with this text we are undoubtedly forcing the issue , since we believe that there are points that must be resolved and it is important for Community fraud to be curbed , to be crushed . 
nevertheless , the way in which our committee intends to see this text through , with the drive and stubborn desire of its Chair , Mrs Theato , will not be without its critics . 
another major criticism of the text concerns secondary law . 
Article 280 of the Treaty allows the Council to pinpoint the appropriate instruments to curb fraud . 
nevertheless , we are left feeling slightly perplexed that they envisage an institution which will mean higher quality , without immediately planning how to deal with the repercussions of this . that is to say , they are neglecting the area of defence and therefore the possibility for the prosecution and the defence to work together effectively within such an important legal system . 
we wanted to express our perplexity as regards these points by abstaining in committee . 
Mr President , we need to speak our minds on this subject in the European Parliament , during the plenary sittings and in the committees , even if it is obvious that the debate must take into account the world of the culture , the legal culture and the places where institutional issues are addressed . 
we find ourselves dealing with some very serious events , which in the past seemed to be the norm . 
today , something has changed , at least in terms of mechanisms , and especially as regards monitoring , but we are still not satisfied , particularly if debates are held in competent fora that go as far as to discuss a European Public Prosecutor , crimes , fraud , the misappropriation of funds and the disclosure of confidential information pertaining to one ' s office at European level . 
I feel that we must clearly safeguard the Community ' s interests , its image and its relationship with taxpayers , who are an indispensable and essential part of Community life . 
for this reason , it is right to look at the issue of safeguarding common interests , and to establish better links with legal systems within the individual States . 
in this respect , we are faced with the most sensitive issue : what role would a European Public Prosecutor play in relations with the individual national communities and their domestic legal systems ? 
this issue needs to be explored further in both cultural and practical terms . 
today , we run the risk of adding a new institution to the already numerous and varied institutions which exist within each country . 
Mr President , I would very much just like to add to two particular points . 
firstly , I would not wish to take up the philosophical issues of subsidiarity and the sovereignty of Member States , although I am very much in favour of having such a debate , for my regular viewing of British television programmes has shown me what the national politicians are conjuring up there in the way of threats posed by the continent to the home @-@ grown legal system . 
sometimes it is worthy of satire and merits discussion , but I digress . 
the point I want to make relates to Mrs Theato ' s report . 
I believe that as far as the judicial difficulties are concerned that we are facing here - and the European Union evidently has only very limited room for manoeuvre when it comes to making these offences litigable as European criminal offences - we have become embroiled in legalities . 
I am referring to Recommendations 1 and 2 . 
after all , there is no longer mention of a European Public Prosecutor , rather , for legal reasons it has now become an independent , European authority , or " body " to quote Mrs Theato . 
we obviously have difficulties there with regard to the legal basis . 
we also face difficulties with regard to offences . 
nothing has changed there . 
as has always been the case , there are offences that transcend European offences , as it were , or at least there is the potential for them to do so , and these might include money @-@ laundering , receiving stolen goods , and forming a criminal organisation . 
as far as that is concerned , I believe there are judicial uncertainties that need to be overcome . 
what Parliament needs to do as a matter of urgency though - and this is why we intend to vote for recital 1 without these recommendations - is to send out a clear political signal to the Commission and Council that we want to see a clear legislative act put an end to this disorderly state of affairs . 
Mr President , for years , Parliament has called for specific and uniform protection under criminal law of the Union ' s financial interests . 
frustration inevitably sets in when we see the weakness of the Convention ( and of the protocols relating to this protection ) which , five years after being signed , has still not been ratified and has still not come into force . 
on the other hand , more pro @-@ active attempts , such as OLAF , which is currently operating , have not allayed legitimate concerns about the system of guarantees for individual rights . 
the proposals in Mrs Theato ' s report seek to encourage the Commission to present a substantive legislative measure on the protection , under criminal law , of our financial interests , which would criminalise certain activity , specifically fraud against the Community budget . these proposals represent a serious attempt to establish a new and ever more urgently @-@ needed uniform criminal law for the whole Community . 
at the same time they call for the existence of an independent body to coordinate and monitor the thoroughness of investigations by OLAF , without harming the administration of justice by each Member State and under the supervision of the European Court of Justice . 
finally , following on from what was agreed in Tampere , the report restates the need for a European Public Prosecutor . this issue has been brought once again to the fore by Commissioner Vitorino ' s timely decision to ask the IGC to include in its agenda the creation of this new role , which everyone considers vital . 
we should approve this report because it highlights the need to maintain efficient legal control over our institutions , by protecting the Union ' s financial system with a substantive and procedural European law which is capable of maintaining the credibility of the Community ' s economic life . 
nevertheless , it raises some very basic questions . 
is there currently a sufficient legal basis for justifying , in legal terms , the creation of a specifically Community @-@ wide criminal law which , although it might be called subsidiary , will always clash with the practice , and in certain areas , with the traditional , separate criminal law of the Member States ? 
as there are doubts , would it not be more advisable , from a political point of view , to put the reform of the legal system on the IGC agenda , and incorporate these proposals into the more general reform of the Union ' s legal system along the lines of what is being requested for the European Public Prosecutor ? 
surely these subjects will be of the greatest relevance to a revision of the treaties which will contribute to the stability of the area of freedom , security and justice ? 
Mr President , the EU is now exposed to tough scrutiny . 
confidence in the European Union has been seriously damaged . 
to remedy this , vigorous efforts are required . 
we therefore welcome increased resources for OLAF so that we can investigate any suspicions more efficiently . 
at the same time , we think it is obvious that those who commit crimes against the EU must be able to be held accountable in an effective way . 
it is unfortunate that the convention for protecting the Union ' s financial interests has been put into effect in so few Member States . 
we therefore think it only right that the Commission should have the task of tabling proposals entailing the further development of the already existing legal framework . 
on the other hand , I am not convinced that making the process more efficient in this way requires common European legislation or centralisation of the fight against crime . 
in the present situation , I am therefore sceptical about the idea of a European prosecutor , which it is scarcely possible to implement within the framework of the present treaty . 
we have more confidence in Eurojust , where prosecutors from the individual nations cooperate . 
the major problem is not that no measures are being taken against crimes committed against the Union but , rather , that these are committed so often and far too seldom discovered . 
the challenge for the Commission and for ourselves is , however , to find the right mix . 
the mismanagement and examples of fraud which occur ought not to lead to our ending up in an old @-@ fashioned hierarchical bureaucracy which , through an exaggerated supervision of detail , prevents the development of a modern administration . 
we therefore welcome the aggressive approach of Mr van Hulten ' s report . 
the main idea ought to be that each administration takes responsibility for its own supervision . 
our experience of modern administration tells us that openness , decentralisation of responsibility and qualified evaluation are often as effective as detailed bureaucratic supervision . 
the major challenge is , therefore , to create a modern and efficient administration without compromising on supervision and the rule of law . 
this requires staff training , more modern recruitment methods and , above all , openness and public control . 
being able to scrutinise the administration effectively is the best protection against irregularities . 
Mr President , rapporteur , restoring the confidence of the citizens in the work of the European institutions and in European politics is one of the most important tasks we have before us . 
the Commission has given its commitment to this task and the draft for the overall package of internal reforms documents this . 
Parliament is committed to this task , which is something this report bears impressive witness to . 
on behalf of the Commission I am able to congratulate the rapporteur on having again addressed the genuinely difficult question as to what we can do , in terms of creating legal bases and effecting institutional change , to step up the fight against fraud perpetrated against the European Union . 
on ratifying the Amsterdam Treaty , all Member States stated that they wanted to accord combating fraud against the financial interests of the European Union the same priority as combating fraud to their own detriment . 
yet as things stand , only the first four Member States have ratified the agreement concluded in 1995 . 
the Commission wholeheartedly agrees with the rapporteur that this is an unacceptable situation 
a legislative act , a directive , in which there is a standardised definition for the different types of fraud such as money @-@ laundering or corruptibility , and in which the obligation to launch criminal proceedings is enshrined as a binding objective , may enable us to take a major step forwards , and I will therefore advise the Commission to examine this step with all due haste . 
OLAF , the European anti @-@ fraud office is one of the most important instruments the Commission has for fulfilling its obligation to combat fraud . 
accordingly , the Commission refused to put up with the fact that both European banks , the ECB and the EIB , contested the right of OLAF to include these two institutions in its investigations , citing their independent status . 
this is why the Commission resolved on raising a complaint against these two banks at its last meeting , and I hope that Parliament approves this step . 
the second recommendation in this report relates to assessing the legitimacy of the investigative measures undertaken by OLAF in the various European institutions . 
it is the task of the monitoring committee for OLAF , which was set up at the same time as OLAF , to safeguard the independence of OLAF , however it cannot undertake the action mentioned in the report of monitoring internal investigative activities conducted by OLAF . 
I am fully in agreement with the monitoring committee and the rapporteur on this point . 
in other words , there is a loophole here which must be filled and I will examine the solution advocated in the report in the interests of moving things on . 
there is one thing I would ask though : I believe we must prevent the debate on extending the legal basis for OLAF from leading to the misconception that OLAF does not now have enough authority . 
no , there must be no undermining of OLAF ' s authority , and neither do I think this was the rapporteur ' s intention . 
as such , I would ask you to give OLAF ' s work your full support , also in its present form . 
vote 
( Parliament approved the Commission proposal ) 
Heaton @-@ Harris ( PPE @-@ DE ) . 
Mr President , on a point of order I should like to ask you for clarification of the Rules of Procedure : namely Rules 133 ( 2 ) and 138 ( 4 ) . 
these are both about voting . 
is it not the case that on votes other than roll @-@ call votes , the vote should take place initially by show of hands and only then , if there is some doubt , should we utilise the electronic voting system ? 
that is quite right , Mr Heaton @-@ Harris . I put the matter to a vote by a show of hands because none of the groups had requested voting by roll call . 
you know that voting by roll call or electronic checking only takes place if Members of the House request it . 
in this particular case , I can assure you there was a large majority in favour of the directive which we have just voted on . 
Mr President , I was not referring to that particular vote but to votes in general . 
it is obvious that some presidents do not look at the hands , so to speak , but go straight to the electronic voting system . 
I was wondering whether this is the correct procedure . 
I know it takes longer , but should we not always have a show of hands first ? 
I shall , I assure you , Mr Heaton @-@ Harris , pay particular attention to the show of hands . 
I hope to see many hands raised when the time comes to vote . 
proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling , presentation and advertising of foodstuffs ( codified version ) ( COM ( 1999 ) 0113 - C4 @-@ 0212 / 1999 - 1999 / 0090 ( COD ) ) ( Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market ) 
( Parliament approved the Commission proposal ) 
- Proposal for a Council regulation ( EC , Euratom ) implementing Decision 94 / 728 / EC , Euratom on the system of the Communities ' own resources ( codified version ) ( COM ( 97 ) 0652 - C4 @-@ 0018 / 98 - 1997 / 0352 ( CNS ) ) ( Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market ) 
( Parliament approved the Commission proposal ) 
procedure without debate : 
( Parliament approved the legislative resolution ) 
Mr President , as far as the second reading is concerned , the Commission can only accept one proposed amendment put forward by Parliament . 
the Commission hereby adopts this amendment and accepts it . 
( the President declared the common position approved ( as amended ) ) 
( Parliament adopted the legislative resolution ) 
report ( A5 @-@ 0108 / 1999 ) by Mrs Schroedter , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the communication from the Commission in the field of the Structural Funds and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund : guidelines for programmes in the period 2000 @-@ 2006 ( COM ( 1999 ) 0344 - C5 @-@ 0122 / 1999 - 1999 / 2127 ( COS ) ) 
( Parliament adopted the resolution ) 
report ( A5 @-@ 0107 / 1999 ) by Mr Berend , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions of the European Union ( SEC ( 1999 ) 0066 - C5 @-@ 0120 / 1999 - 1999 / 2123 ( COS ) ) 
( Parliament adopted the resolution ) 
report ( 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 ) 0101 - C5 @-@ 0105 / 1999 - 1999 / 2108 ( COS ) ) 
( Parliament adopted the resolution ) 
report ( A5 @-@ 0078 / 1999 ) by Mr Rapkay , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the European Commission ' s XXVIIIth Report on Competition Policy ( 1998 ) ( SEC ( 1999 ) 0743 - C5 @-@ 0121 / 1999 - 1999 / 2124 ( COS ) ) 
( Parliament adopted the resolution ) 
report ( 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 the manufacturing and certain other sectors ( COM ( 1999 ) 148 - C5 @-@ 0107 / 1999 - 1999 / 2110 ( COS ) ) 
( Parliament adopted the resolution ) 
( Parliament adopted the resolution ) 
explanations OF VOTE- Own resources 
. 
( FR ) The European Union is apparently financed through four own resources . 
the European budget is effectively sourced from VAT and on the basis of GDP , especially now that the Community preference system has been abandoned and the multiplication of free trade areas has put paid to customs duties and the common agricultural levy , which had already been cut back drastically by the Generalised System of Preferences . 
since then , Community VAT fraud and distortions in the calculation of GDP , the taxable basis for the fourth resource , have had a perceptible effect on the yield and justice of Community resources . 
since then , of course , this Europe with pretensions to federalism is now more than ever financed like the commonplace intergovernmental organisation it actually is , but which it refuses to see itself as . 
this can be clearly seen in the regulation before us . 
it shows a concern with the accounting involving own resources , the process of making them available or with the monitoring of declared amounts made available to the Commission . 
furthermore , the new Advisory Committee that has been created is made up of representatives of the taxpaying Member States . 
this is a long way from offshoots such as the " Community criminal code " , the " European Public Prosecutor " or a European police force , with OLAF . 
there is as yet no federal European tax . 
all the same , a Europe with 25 members will be wanting a European tax on income , if not on profits , or the tax on CO2 to finance the budget for 2025 . 
Koch Report ( A5 @-@ 0105 / 1999 ) 
- ( FR ) It is with great satisfaction that I welcome this report on improved harmonisation in the training of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods . 
in recent years , the transportation of dangerous goods nationally and internationally has increased considerably , increasing the risk of accidents . 
some of these risks were due to an inadequate awareness of the risks inherent in such transportation . 
it therefore proved necessary , in the context of establishing the internal market , to adopt some measures intended to ensure better risk prevention . 
directive 96 / 35 / EC was a response to this requirement . 
firms involved in the transport of dangerous goods and in the loading and unloading operations related to such transportation have been obliged , quite rightly , to comply with regulations regarding risk prevention , whether road , rail or inland waterway transport is involved . 
in order to facilitate achieving this objective , Directive 96 / 35 / EC provided for the appointment of safety advisers for dangerous goods who would have appropriate professional training . 
this professional training would be targeted at awareness of the terms of the legislation , regulations and administrative conditions applicable to such transport . 
while this represented significant progress at the time , the lack of specific terms governing the harmonisation of examination requirements proved to be a problem . 
it therefore seemed essential to make good this omission in order to achieve the standardised , high @-@ level training of safety advisers , but also in order to avoid any disparities between the costs of training , with a concomitant effect on competition between the firms of different Member Sates . 
the Commission proposal seeks to ensure that the training of safety advisers is standardised . 
it outlines the minimum content of examinations and defines the role of the authorising body as well as the requirements demanded of the examining bodies . 
Parliament voted in favour of this text . 
it did , however , table a number of amendments , most of which were adopted in the Council ' s common position , particularly regarding the need to draw up a questionnaire and statements on the authorisation of some document in the context of the ' specification of the examination arrangements proposed by the examination body ' . 
in order to be realistic , I further support postponing the date for the application of these conditions until three months after the directive itself comes into force . 
I shall conclude by emphasising that harmonising the professional qualifications of advisers will contribute to improving the quality of the service in the interest of users , to minimising the risks of accident likely to cause damage to the environment as well as significant damage liable to be harmful to any person who may come into contact with dangerous goods . 
Koch Report ( A5 @-@ 0104 / 1999 ) 
last October I expressed my views on the Hatzidakis report on the transport of dangerous goods by rail . 
the views I shall express today are not far removed from those I had then . 
essentially , my opinion is as follows : I deplore the fact that , in a field as crucial as the transport of dangerous goods , we keep putting off the adoption of harmonised standards to the detriment of human beings and the environment . 
I shall point out that a directive on the approximation of Member State legislation on the transport of dangerous goods by road came into force on 1 January 1997 . 
this included a number of interim conditions valid until 1 January 1999 . 
this is the time when we should have expressed our opinion of the Commission proposal to put an end to the derogations . 
in line with the usual procedure , it is the European Committee for Standardisation ( CEN ) which puts forward standards in this area , and they are then integrated in to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road signed in Geneva in 1957 ( known generally as ADR ) , applicable throughout Europe , whose terms and conditions form the basis for the legislation applicable within the EU . 
the CEN has been unable to complete its work in the time allotted . 
consequently , the Commission proposal under discussion today is intended to amend the directive in order to provide a short @-@ term solution to these problems , rather than to put an end to the transitional arrangements , as should have been the case ! 
this is exactly what happened in the case of transport of such goods by rail , except for the fact that a time limit had been decided . 
right now we do not have the slightest idea as to when the CEN will be in a position to put forward practical proposals . 
until then , there is really no point in Member States amending their national regulations . 
the report also accepts that some flexibility may be adopted , and grants States the option of adopting or applying alternative standards . 
they may , therefore , continue to enforce their own standards regarding certain types of pressure vessel used for transportation , where there are no applicable European standards . 
they may also adopt alternative conditions for transportation of a local nature and for ad hoc transportation . 
in offering this explanation of my vote , therefore , I wished to express my deep dissatisfaction and my deep concern . 
Schroedter Report ( A5 @-@ 0108 / 1999 ) 
Mr President , I wanted to press home my explanation of vote by this oral explanation following on from the Schroedter report with regard to regional development . 
I would urge both the Member States and the Commission to give sufficient consideration to the huge disparities in wealth which continue to exist between the different regions in Europe . 
not only the difference in income per capita but , above all , large disparities in employment continue to give cause for concern . 
despite the fact that the Community , through the structural funds among others , injects considerable sums into combating the disparities between regional development opportunities in Europe , these disparities continue to exist . 
I therefore wonder whether the Community should not have a more drastic change of tack and , based on very strict evaluations , change its course and change its objectives in such a way as to make it possible to combat the disparities in wealth and employment more effectively . 
Mr President , in relation to the Schroedter report , I am aware , and have had it confirmed to me by Mr Barnier , that the rules on additionality concerning Structural Funds apply only at the level of Member States and do not apply in a transitive and transparent way inside Member States in favour of self @-@ governing regions such as Wales or Scotland . 
I regard that as a very unsatisfactory state of affairs . 
I hope we can revisit this issue at a later time . 
I want it to be clear that though I voted in favour of the report , I have this important reservation . 
. 
( FR ) This report takes us back to the question of why we even have a regional policy . 
in order to reduce disparities between regions , of course . 
but more especially because , even though at first sight the European market guarantees us improved functioning of the economy , it may also be a source of inequality . 
Jacques Delors was accustomed to saying that the market was short @-@ sighted and hence the political need to reduce disparities . 
it is precisely this phenomenon of solidarity which lies behind the European social model , which we are all in favour of , and which gave rise to the idea of economic and social cohesion . 
this is a real political objective , alongside economic and monetary affairs , drawn up in collaboration with Member States , regions and local communities , with the Commission itself responsible for issuing guidelines in order to show Member States what direction to take in order to achieve the objectives required in the context of programming . 
this is why I shall support this report , despite regretting the fact that , for timetabling reasons , the European Parliament was only consulted at a very late date on the guidelines intended to assist Member States , regions and local communities in the programming of Objectives 1 , 2 and 3 . 
moreover , I would also urge this House to take into consideration the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs , adding a whole raft of thoughts on key areas such as combating social exclusion , support for the social economy and the implementation of the employment strategy . 
Mrs Schroedter ' s report marks a further step towards the transparency and effectiveness of structural aid . 
it highlights the increasing vital role of all the parties involved , chiefly those involved at a local level , who are the only ones able to define specific requirements and social problems , hence our determination to ensure that the partnerships to be established are true partnerships , which are decentralised and involve all the agents concerned . 
this is the reason for the request which we are putting forward again to establish a management unit for structural assistance in the Member States , which would coordinate the implementation and administration of aid . 
in order to do so , the monitoring committees must be opened to include Members of the European Parliament , associations and industrialists concerned by the projects and also civil society . 
these guidelines represent a step towards the improved effectiveness of Community structural aid . 
amended again as such by the Schroedter report , they are a step in the right direction . 
they also call for a general debate on the future of the cohesion policy after 2006 , but that is another subject . 
in the meantime , let us support this first step . 
- This report calls for drastic cuts in the level of illegal state aid dished out by some Member States . 
although I wholeheartedly support this aim , I would much rather see such aid eliminated altogether . 
in my mind , illegal state aid amounts to little more than state @-@ sponsored social dumping . 
we all oppose social dumping when perpetrated by fat cat industry , we must also oppose it when perpetrated by governments . 
if we are to have an effective single market that makes European industry globally competitive and generates wealth and employment for all Europeans , then we must have a level playing field . 
illegal state aid , by contrast , destroys competitive companies and creates unemployment . 
there are , of course , cases when state aid can be necessary and legitimate , for example helping companies restructure . 
in all such cases , however , strict criteria must be met and prior approval from the European Commission gained . 
whether we are talking about beef to France or about backhanders to industry , EU Member States must not be allowed to flout the law . 
I enthusiastically support the report 's proposal to publish a " scoreboard " showing the amount of state aid per Member State . 
countries that claim to be at the heart of Europe but which systematically break its rules should be named and shamed and their hypocrisy revealed . 
Member States cannot be allowed to proclaim European solidarity in public while trying to undermine the single market in private . 
I take some mild encouragement from the fact that levels of state aid to industry in Europe appear to be falling . 
much remains to be done , however , and I call on the Commission to be far tougher in exposing the subsidy junkies of Europe . 
( PT ) The Commission ' s main instruments for overcoming regional disparities are the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund . it is therefore crucial that the European Parliament drafts its broad indicative guidelines without threatening the principle of subsidiarity , given that establishing the development strategy for each country falls to the respective Member States . 
unfortunately , the European Commission has already moved ahead with its guidelines and Parliament ' s position on the programmes for 2000 @-@ 2006 does not carry much weight . 
it is nevertheless important to reiterate the need for the main priority of these funds to be the development of the countries and regions with the greatest problems and of the outermost regions , of which the Portuguese regions of the Azores and Madeira are examples . this must be done with the objective of achieving economic and social cohesion . 
the truth is though , that the Commission ' s guidelines do not fully meet these objectives . 
. 
in the first place , if administrative procedures are not simplified , it will be hard to attain Community objectives on reform , with a view to greater efficiency and concentration . 
in this respect , the Commission document has shortcomings , as it makes no recommendation to the Member States to simplify procedures and national legislation for the presentation and examination of projects by the national authorities , and for their funding , execution and monitoring . 
SMEs , micro @-@ enterprises and craft businesses in particular are still " weak operators " , given that it is precisely for them that the regulatory and administrative constraints imposed by some Member States , including Italy , are major obstacles to accessing Structural Funds . 
this is why the mid @-@ term review , provided for under Article 42 of Regulation 1260 / 99 , will be of considerable importance . 
in general , the current guidelines cannot be considered as clear or transparent . 
they merely touch on the - nevertheless important - issue of the possibility of assessing the progress made in relation to verifiable objectives which are completely consonant with the strategies followed in Community policies , and they do not pay enough attention to the implications of enlargement , so much so that they do not contain specific provisions or clarifications as regards either regional and national authorities , or candidate countries . 
that said , the differing approach adopted in the guidelines , which are not geared to geographical objectives , but rather to policy areas , can be considered as positive . 
while in theory this may meet the need for concentration and therefore the efficiency of interventions , we cannot help wondering whether the current situation of the Objective 1 zones allows , in practice , a policy of integrated interventions , for which an operational instrument to coordinate the appropriations is necessary . 
the guidelines , as adopted by the Commission , are very limited because , instead of meeting the aim of providing guidance , they are providing a shopping list of possible measures , a shopping list which , as it fails to set priorities in ascending order , could even put the Member States on the wrong track by guiding them towards a series of proposals that is at odds with the desired concentration . 
we could say that , in this state of affairs , we have once again missed the opportunity to really strengthen sustainable urban development by ring @-@ fencing ever @-@ increasing urbanisation and , hence the destruction of the countryside . 
rural areas must truly be seen as a resource which should be increasingly invested in , by encouraging young people to remain in rural areas in order to prevent their economic and social disintegration . 
a genuine flaw in the guidelines are specific guidelines for the orchestration of coordination between the ESF and employment strategy . the fact that this coordination is being put into effect for the first time during the 2000 @-@ 2006 programme period implies that the Member States really do need " guidelines " . 
I must also stress that once again the Commission is , in fact , skirting the issue of practical action on equal opportunities . 
in conclusion , the document is not particularly satisfactory , and in some aspects is disappointing . 
Berend Report ( A5 @-@ 0107 / 1999 ) 
. ( PT ) We basically agree with the assessment and the thoughts put forward by the rapporteur concerning the sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union . 
we shall therefore confine ourselves to highlighting a few issues . 
firstly , and as the Commission itself states , it must be understood that the great improvement seen by some of the poorest regions in their per capita GDP between 1991 and 1996 was largely due to the inclusion of the new German Länder in calculating the Community average from 1991 onwards . this obviously caused a slight reduction in the Union ' s per capita GDP level . 
we also feel that it is particularly important to state that the recovery seen in some regions - where it did actually take place - was accompanied only to a limited extent by growth in employment . this consequently imposes the need for new development strategies , with a considerably greater level of attention needing to be paid to this area . 
this situation shows that it would be a mistake to leave adopting measures for promoting employment to the exclusive internal control of the Member States , which is what the report proposes . 
finally , but no less importantly , I would like to refer to the rapporteur ' s proposal that , in future , this type of report should also include , amongst other issues , an analysis of the way cohesion is developing between the regions within each State . 
the huge variety of situations and the varying development seen from region to region within the same State mean that there is a need for an in @-@ depth assessment of this issue . this kind of assessment would enable us to allow and guarantee corrections to regional ( and other ) policies with a view also to guaranteeing internal cohesion within each Member State . 
. 
( FR ) The Berend report gives us an interesting analysis of the situation and economic development of the regions of the European Union . 
nonetheless , the French members of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group feels it cannot approve some of the statements made therein . 
paragraph 26 , for example , " Draws attention to the special need to consolidate the budget as a prerequisite for the success of economic and monetary union and the enlargement of the Union " . 
at a time when , in order to fulfil the convergence criteria , Member States are forced to undergo a strict budgetary slimming regime , one that would be perfectly justified if they undertook it of their own initiative , the federalists are displaying an astonishing pecuniary gluttony . 
as an admission of the failure of the cohesion policy and EMU , the lack of results is put down to the lack of money , with everyone competing in eloquence to demand more and more appropriations without anyone asking questions about the effectiveness of the money spent . 
what can one say about a budgetary procedure which involves setting objectives for expenditure rather than a ceiling on expenditure and trying at all costs to find projects in order to spend the approved appropriations , rather than allocating the appropriations to existing projects ? 
expenditure becomes an end in itself , evidence of the success of a programme . 
the statistics published by the European Commission in its sixth report do however show , as Mr Berend pointed out , the limitations of the policy being implemented : 
the relative weight of the most wealthy regions of the European Union was strengthened between 1986 et 1996 , testifying to a concentration of wealth , jobs and activity in certain areas : Hamburg , Brussels , Antwerp , Luxembourg , the Paris region , Darmstadt , Oberbayern , Bremen , Vienna , Karlsruhe and Emilia @-@ Romagna . 
quite the opposite of what the rapporteur stated , the establishment of economic and monetary union should exacerbate the exodus of population from the most outlying , the most rural and the least populated regions in favour of the central axes of the Union ( the Benelux countries , North West Germany , Northern Italy , the Parisian region , etc ) . 
the poorest regions are gradually making good their underdevelopment . 
in 1986 , the average of the 10 poorest regions amounted to 41 % of the overall Community GNP . 
in 1996 it was 50 % . 
progress is particularly marked in Portugal and Ireland . 
in fact , if the rich are ever more wealthy and the extremely poor are less poor , then it seems that the middle @-@ range regions , covered by Objective 2 , are experiencing an occasionally significant downturn in their GNP , and a worsening of the employment situation . 
this phenomenon is particularly marked in France : the GNP of the Champagne @-@ Ardennes region , which it is my honour to represent , has gone from 105 % to 94 % of the Community average , that of the Loire region has dropped from 95 % to 91 % , and that of the Auvergne from 89 % to 83 % . 
this is a generalised tendency , sparing neither the Rhône @-@ Alpes , nor Alsace . 
it has been confirmed in Sweden and Finland , countries where unemployment has in fact increased to a worrying degree over the last few years , as in many regions of the United Kingdom . 
it may therefore seem strange that , when the Structural Funds were reformed , Objective 2 , dedicated to industrial and rural areas undergoing economic restructuring , should have been sacrificed in favour of Objectives 1 and 3 . for the period 1999 @-@ 2006 , the total appropriation for this Objective will be ECU 22.5 billion , a figure more or less identical to that for the period 1994 @-@ 1999 . 
based as it is on such choices , it is to be doubted whether regional policy can contribute to harmonious regional planning within the Member States of the European Union . 
von Wogau Report ( A5 @-@ 0069 / 1999 ) 
. 
( FR ) Considering the employment situation in the Community and the European Union ' s declared ambition to steadfastly attack unemployment , the analysis of mergers carried out by the Commission should take elements other than competition into consideration . 
as an example I would give the restructuring of ABB Alsthom Power . a sizeable delegation of employees of this firm from throughout Europe is visiting Strasbourg today . 
the management of ABB Alsthom Power , following a merger carried out in June 1999 , announced restructuring where there is already the prospect of layoffs in a number of countries . 
this damaging situation for employment raises many questions , particularly regarding the information given to the European Works Council , in existence since 1996 . 
it suggests that the Community directive on European Works Councils must be updated and strengthened . 
it also requires the monitoring of mergers taking employment , the environment and consumers into consideration . 
since the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs did not go far enough in this respect , I abstained . 
( PT ) By proposing to apply the principle of subsidiarity in Community competition policy , the Commission is devolving to national authorities and courts the responsibility to take decisions and deal with abuses of dominant positions in relation to company agreements which create market distortion . issues of mergers and state aid however , still remain within the notification system . 
the position that has now been adopted aims to create more rapid ways of applying competition policy , moving towards applying Community law in national courts rather than at the European Court of Justice , and even aims at having specialised courts . 
this partial renationalisation of competition policy could involve higher costs for Member States . 
on the other hand , as the rapporteur points out , in the name of competition policy , public monopolies are often exchanged for private monopolies , with the privatisation of important industries and public companies , as has happened in Portugal , with harmful consequences for the country and its workers . 
- ( FR ) The Commission ' s White Paper on the modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty ( now 81 and 82 ) certainly does not propose any " renationalisation " of competition policy , as some Members of the European Parliament fear . 
but it does , at least , make it possible to anticipate some rather interesting options for development of the European Union . 
in fact , taking note of the congestion of its services due to the prior notification system of state agreements likely to cause distortions in trade , and afraid of seeing the number of notifications increase yet further with the arrival of new Member States , the Commission is proposing to do away with the prior notification system of such agreements , and to apply competition rules at Member State level in a more decentralised fashion . 
the most remarkable thing , in my view , is the message conveyed by this proposal : that the Commission is anticipating the consequences of enlargement and realising that this necessarily , and virtually automatically , requires reform of the centralised system . 
admittedly , this reform is one of increasing flexibility rather than dismantling . 
indeed , the White Paper envisages that the Commission will retain the supervision and central direction of the new system . 
moreover , the von Wogau report , which the European Parliament has just voted on , supports it in so doing . 
but at the same time , one can clearly see that the upheaval caused by enlargement may lead to Community competences being limited and subsidiarity being extended . 
it is a quite different Europe which is taking shape in the long term . 
is this not , indeed , what is so distressing to some Socialist Members of the European Parliament ? 
the German Social Democrats voted against the von Wogau report because , in their view , it might break up European policy on competition , which is to say , in plain terms , attacking the standardising superstate . 
curiously , a number of employers agreed with them , preferring the European " one @-@ stop " system , which they consider to be more economical and more stable legally . 
indeed , this is one advantage of the present system . 
but , on the other hand , the wider view must also be taken , namely that the initial decentralisation which has been begun today may , in the long term , lead to greater freedom to take the requirements of each country into account , and this will be of benefit to everyone . 
Rapkay Report ( A5 @-@ 0078 / 1999 ) 
the Members of Parliament from the Lutte Ouvrière Party shall not be voting in favour of these reports on European competition policy . 
competition is a war which has major concerns fighting each other , which constantly takes the form of layoffs , factory closures , not to mention extensive waste of production capacity . 
we see a further example of this with the planned layoffs in Europe proposed by the corporation ABB Alsthom Power . 
eighteen million unemployed and 50 million poor people within the European Union , despite its being one of the wealthiest regions in the world : these are the results of this competition which the European institutions intend to promote . 
the Commission ' s declared intention to regulate the conditions of competition on the European market is ridiculous , for the only law which competition respects is the law of the jungle where the most powerful squash or devour the weakest elements . 
this is repulsive most of all in social terms . 
the European Commission ' s report is a blunt demonstration of the fact that the Union institutions have no interest in anything except the major capitalist corporations who are engaged in this economic warfare and have no interest in the victims this causes . 
there is nothing to prevent the spread of unemployment , nothing to protect employees , nothing to prevent the major concerns driving part of the population into poverty simply to make their shareholders richer still ! 
we acknowledge that this report does have one good point - it shows that the working class majority in society can expect nothing from the European institutions in terms of safeguarding their living conditions , and still less of improving them . 
- ( FR ) In voting against this report , we are acting as spokespersons for all the men and women who in Seattle and throughout Europe expressed their rejection of a world reduced to strict commercial logic . 
we are voting against this report on behalf of the development of public services , in memory of the victims of the Paddington rail disaster , killed not by fate but by an absurd determination to have competition where there should instead be regulations . 
this report is essentially a primitive text with no inspiration other than the law of the jungle , for it is not competition that can solve the problems facing humanity at this turn of the century . 
whether it is a matter of the balance of the biosphere , culture or cooperation with the third world , excessive competition is a factor increasing regression and insecurity . 
do you imagine that the 18 million unemployed people in Europe are victims of too reticent an application of this competition policy ? 
we are convinced that the opposite is true , and we do not think that state aid is by definition excessive . 
excessive in comparison with what iron rule , what criteria of efficiency ? 
finally , after Seattle , do you really think you can advocate increasing the role of the WTO ? 
only the legal advisers to multinationals could demonstrate such stubbornness . 
Jonckheer Report ( A5 @-@ 0087 / 1999 ) 
I am pleased to see the quality of the seventh report on state aid within the EU , and to see that it will henceforth be an annual report , and also that the Directorate @-@ General for Competition will be making information , both general and specific , publicly accessible via its website . 
I am happy with the rapporteur ' s treatment of state aid and I congratulate him on this . 
there is too often a tendency to criticise state aid harshly as a measure causing distortion in competition . 
admittedly , an effective competition policy is a prerequisite for the proper operation of the internal market and of economic and monetary union . 
however , as the rapporteur pointed out , such aid is occasionally essential and may , in addition to enabling the survival of a specific firm , make it possible to contribute to sustainable development ( Article 6 of the Treaty ) , services of general economic interest ( Article 16 ) and economic and social cohesion ( Article 158 ) . 
clearly though , it must be monitored , a task which falls to the European Commission . 
the aid which Union Member States allocate each year to the sectors under consideration reached a total of EUR 95 billion in the period 1995 @-@ 1997 , including 40 % allocated to the manufacturing sector . 
this aid is considerably less than the previous period , 1993 @-@ 1995 ( a 13 % drop in the total amount and a drop from 3.8 % to 2.6 % in the amount of aid to the manufacturing sector ) . 
this downturn in aid is chiefly due to the reduction in aid granted to the new German Länder . 
like the rapporteur , I deplore the fact that the figures given in the report do not cover all state aid . 
the European Commission must make good these omissions as soon as possible . 
it must also cooperate with the Member States in order to improve the quality of data in good time , which is to say in time for the ninth report . 
I think it would be a good idea if the Commission published a register specifying the amount of state aid per Member State . 
I also deplore the fact that the European Parliament has been totally excluded from the Advisory Committee on State Aid . 
in order to compensate for this situation , the European Commission should be obliged to make regular reports to us . 
I shall conclude with one aspect of the use of state aid which I feel is particularly dangerous : the matter of aid resulting in businesses relocating from one Member State to another , with the risk of subsidy hunting which makes no contribution to the shared objectives of the EU . 
this is why I should like to see the next report on state aid include some assessment of the effect of such aid on employment , industry and craft businesses in the beneficiary countries . 
Langen Report ( A5 @-@ 0073 / 1999 ) 
in the important debate on competition this morning , I expressed my views on Mr Langen ' s report on the implementation in 1998 of the sixth Steel Aid Code . 
just as the Court of Justice recognised in its order of 3 May 1996 , the iron and steel industry is particularly sensitive to disturbances to its competitive operation . 
establishing a system of aids to this sector intended to ensure the survival of successful firms was therefore justifiable , even though Article 4 ( c ) , of the ECSC Treaty prohibited any sort of state aid to the steel industry . 
this , indeed , is the purpose of the sixth Steel Aid Code . 
at the same time , it is , of course , essential to avoid any disturbance of competition conditions or of the markets , hence the importance of regulating such aid . 
it is therefore essential to continue to restrict state aid to research and development , environmental protection and aid granted in the event of plant closure . 
in the same way , it is vital for Member States to fulfil their obligation to report to the Commission on the aid granted to their steel undertakings , as stipulated under Article 7 of the Steel Aid Code . 
the Commission suggests that Member States submit their reports within a time limit of two months following the end of each six @-@ month period or , at least , annually , without the need for reminders . 
like the rapporteur , I am pleased with the Commission report , but I did deplore the fact that the report did not cover every aspect of the aid . 
although the Steel Aid Code is expressed in a very clear way , the Commission has , on a number of occasions , authorised aid for the steel industry even though such aid did not fall within the categories set out in the code . 
in the interests of equality , there are grounds to either apply the Steel Aid Code strictly or modify the Code if the Commission wishes to authorise types of aid other than those legally acceptable at the moment . 
finally , we have the problem of the consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty . 
the aid system must effectively be continued beyond 2002 . 
my feeling in this respect is that only a Council Regulation can provide the necessary legal certainty and ensure an official ban on any aid not covered by the code . 
for all these reasons I voted in favour of the Langen report , and I now await the Commission ' s response to our requests and demands . 
( the sitting was suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m. ) 
oil slick off the French coast 
the next item is the Commission statement on the oil slick off the French coast . 
Mrs de Palacio will open the debate on behalf of the Commission . 
Mr President , I shall be speaking on behalf of the PPE @-@ DE Group , but also as an elected representative for Brittany , and I am therefore directly concerned and shocked by these events . 
together with Mrs Grossetête and the PPE @-@ DE Group , we tabled a motion for a resolution . 
I am pleased to see that we have today arrived at a compromise motion . 
the Erika shipwreck is a truly European issue , firstly because it is disfiguring and polluting some of the most beautiful beaches in Europe , with extremely serious consequences for tourism , people who earn their living from the sea and environmentalists , and also because the underlying issue is the regulation and monitoring which ought naturally to be on a European scale . 
a disaster of this scale could almost certainly not have occurred along the American coastline , and why ? 
because the Americans managed to learn their lesson from the Exxon Valdez disaster and in 1990 to draw up the Oil Pollution Act , which makes the parties concerned aware of their responsibilities , as it makes it possible to hold the charterer liable , and is more restrictive , and , more especially , more carefully monitored thanks to various regulations and , in particular , the existence of the American coastguard . 
if , I repeat , we had had regulations of this type , then this disaster would surely not have occurred . 
this is why we think that the applicable legislation must be reviewed , particularly the 1992 protocol which has exempted the shipowners , in this case the oil tanker charterer , from any liability . 
well , if the charterer is exonerated , then of course he is less concerned with the inspections which oil companies are responsible for . 
the regulations must therefore be reviewed , and I thank you , Commissioner , for highlighting the inadequate features of current European regulations . 
moreover , as you said , monitoring must above all be stepped up : that of the flag state , that of the classification societies . 
you told us that RINA was an Italian classification register recognised by the Commission . 
what are the conditions for this recognition ? 
what guarantees are there of its reliability ? 
you are going to commission a fact @-@ finding mission . 
we await the outcome with great interest . 
inspections by the maritime authorities and supervision within European ports must also be tightened up . 
there is a Paris Memorandum in existence , let me remind you , which stipulates a minimum for inspection , that is , one in four of the vessels putting into European ports must be inspected by the maritime authorities of the country concerned . 
this obligation is not respected either in France or in many other European countries . 
why not ? 
what conclusions has the Commission already drawn or what conclusions is it going to draw ? 
I also think it essential to step up the level of inspection that the charterer is responsible for , in this case , the oil company . 
if the charterer ' s liability entails a financial commitment , then doubtless the inspection will be enforced to a greater extent . 
finally , we need some coordination of national maritime authorities in order to achieve some sort of European facility comparable to the coastguards who supervise the coasts of the United States . 
firstly , I would like to thank the environment colleagues in my group who approached this particular problem jointly with their transport team . 
this disaster is both a transport and environmental one and is not confined to one area . 
here we are here again in this Parliament discussing yet another maritime disaster . 
I could reel off the list of disasters that have afflicted this industry in my 10 years in this Parliament but I only have three minutes . 
surely it is now about time that not only the Member States but that toothless tiger that is known as the International Maritime Organisation , and last but not least , the oil companies and tanker owners take on their responsibilities by acting to stop these ecological and human tragedies repeating themselves year after year . 
how many more Erikas do we have to endure before the powers that be deliver to us a proper port state control that is effective throughout the whole of the European Union , not just certain areas of it ? 
how much more pollution do we have to endure before the industry delivers us tankers with segregated tanks and double holds ? 
how many more seabirds are to die before shipping companies end the practice of cleaning their tanks at sea which , as our resolution points out , causes far more pollution than any Erika @-@ type disaster ? 
while I recognise that some progress has been made in areas like port state control and minimal crewing standards , we are still faced with what our late colleague Ken Stewart used to call ' ships of shame sailing in and out of our European Union waters : rust buckets badly crewed ' . 
we need the Member States to act quickly and decisively . 
we need our governments to put up the financial resources needed to give us effective control and we need them also to stop dragging their feet when it comes to maritime safety . 
the Erika cost no human lives but it may have ruined many human livelihoods . 
just as the Sea Empress , just as the Braer did . 
it is absolutely certain that all three left us with an ecological disaster . 
my group 's sympathy goes out to the people of Brittany who have seen their area despoiled by this disaster , just as my group 's sympathy went out to the people of West Wales and to the Shetland Islands on previous occasions . 
is it not about time that we stopped expressing sympathy and started issuing enforcement notices to get rid of these ships of shame in favour of safe seas or we will be back again , later on this year , discussing a new motion for a resolution when yet another flag @-@ of @-@ convenience tanker sadly goes down spewing its crude oil all over the sea . 
the time for resolutions has passed . 
what is now needed is action . 
sadly , I fear , the Council will yet again fail to act and we will be back in the future discussing yet another maritime and ecological disaster . 
Mr President , every time there is a disaster of this kind people say it must never happen again . 
in reality we can never stop accidents happening at sea , but it is incumbent upon us all to learn the lessons whenever an incident of this kind takes place and apply those lessons to reduce risks in future . 
the " Erika " incident was serious especially for the people of Brittany most closely affected , but it was devastating for the wildlife of much of Europe . 
some say that it is the worst accident that has ever befallen the bird life of this part of Europe . 
the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds believes that as many as 400,000 birds , perhaps mainly guillemots , may have died . 
the pictures many of us will have seen of oil @-@ soaked birds being put down by veterinary officials were both distressing and tragic . 
we all want the highest standards for ships whatever flag they may be flying . 
we need to enforce the regulations and ensure that the " polluter pays " principle is applied so that financial penalties and some incentives are used to put pressure on both ship operators and oil companies to ensure that best practice is introduced . 
I agree with every word the Commissioner said in her remarks , but the question is , how long will it take to ensure that measures are introduced to deal with the problem in the way she proposes ? 
as a politician she needs to remind her officials how difficult it would be were she to have to come back to this Parliament in a year , were a similar incident , just as devastating , to take place , if some of the measures she has proposed today were simply still remaining as fine words and she had not had the chance to put them into practice . 
the thought of an incident of this kind occurring in the near future should concentrate her mind and the minds of her officials wonderfully . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I have brought you a small gift . here is a cake of oil sent by someone living on the French island of Noirmoutier who wrote to me as follows : " with every tide , the beach is covered with heavy fuel oil which has leaked out of the Erika . 
with every tide , the volunteers , members of the armed forces and firemen remove great pancakes of this thick , sticky , black tar . 
when will we see a return to cleanliness and the end of this devastating accident ? " 
indeed this disaster involving the Erika , like that of the Russian vessel in Turkey , moreover , is unacceptable and intolerable at a time when the ultimate hi @-@ tech technology is available . 
it is all the more unacceptable for such a thing to occur twenty years after the Amoco Cadiz disaster , despite our saying at the time and many times since , " Never again ! " 
it is , of course , the responsibility of policies , and therefore our responsibility , to guarantee the safety of sea transport . 
we absolutely have to guarantee our citizens that a disaster of this type will never happen again . 
but , listening to you , Commissioner , we are somewhat frustrated because anyone already involved in these matters knows that in 1992 , I believe , the Commission and Parliament drew up a very interesting text which already contained all the proposals included in the resolution drawn up by the transport committee . 
indeed , we must say and keep saying that the Erika is one disaster too many . 
this is why it is essential , as a matter of urgency , for the European Union to undertake a radical review of its directives on sea transport to make them more restrictive and to establish clear and specific regulations determining the responsibilities of the owners of the cargoes . 
we should be aware , for example , that Shell and British Petroleum refused to use the Erika to transport their oil . 
why , in these circumstances , is the liability of Total as charterer not recognised ? 
your proposals must also include making double hulls mandatory and enforcing observance , at last , of the ban on degassing at sea . 
a European inspection body must be established which can monitor the condition of vessels effectively and efficiently . 
in addition , it is also essential for the European Union to undertake to reform the IMO , as a matter of urgency . 
what point is there in issuing restrictive directives if , once they are at sea , most vessels do just what they wish ? 
finally , a compassionate thought for all the volunteers , nature lovers and bird lovers , who spontaneously and generously are coming through to the aid of the oil @-@ covered birds , organising rescue operation with the means available . 
I can testify to this remarkable work . 
you are no doubt aware that approximately 200 000 birds are going to die as a result of this oil slick , which is a major ecological disaster , practically unprecedented in scale . 
in relation to this , you are no doubt also aware how difficult it is nowadays to preserve natural species as well as natural spaces . 
and , on this subject , Commissioner , you did not mention how the Commission intends to contribute to the restoration of the natural environment and the natural habitats . 
once again , there will be no clearly defined party responsible . 
in the meantime , it is nature that is taking the rap , as always . 
Mr President , my group asked that this debate be set up in order to provide Parliament with an opportunity to express its solidarity with the people directly affected by this ecological disaster , affected both in terms of their economic activities and in terms of their attachment to their natural environment . 
let me , in this connection , welcome the presence in the visitors ' gallery of Mrs Javette @-@ Le Besque , spokesperson for the oil slick action group " Marée noire " , made up of men and women from the French department of Morbihan . 
many volunteers from France and other European countries have expressed their solidarity by lending a hand to the victims in the field . 
our proposals are particularly concerned with the age of oil tankers . 
among those inspected and found to be in contravention of regulations last year , 15 were at least 20 years old and some were 30 and more . 
this is no longer tolerable . 
next , we have flags of convenience . 
according to the International Transport Federation , over 40 % of the ships wrecked in 1998 were sailing under flags of convenience , the symbol of profit and the exploitation of human beings at the expense of safety . 
this is no longer tolerable . 
finally , there is the lack of transparency . 
everything is done to make the lines of responsibility , the identity of the owners and real decision @-@ makers as impenetrable as possible . 
this is no longer tolerable . 
in all these respects we must ensure real , significant change , including setting a time limit for the switch to new standards , including the mandatory double hull , on pain of being banned from the ports or the territorial waters of Member States . 
we must also ensure increased strictness both in issuing sea @-@ worthiness certificates and in monitoring the condition and the maintenance of vessels . 
finally we must ensure that all the parties responsible for disasters contribute to repairing the damage caused . 
I am thinking specifically of Total @-@ Fina in the present instance . 
this is an approach , Mr President , which the European Union can develop with regard to the International Maritime Organisation . 
in so doing , it will have proved its usefulness to public opinion which , in this instance , is awaiting clear , tangible action . 
Mr President , Commissioner , as a Member for the French Atlantic coast , for Vendée , I should first like to express the disgust of the people who are the victims of the Erika oil slick in the face of these disasters , caused not by a natural disaster such as the hurricane which has also just struck us , but by a crime . 
in this emergency , in this ordeal , we have seen a magnificent display of solidarity : local solidarity , national solidarity , and intergovernmental solidarity . 
quite clearly , we are now paying the price for our lack of concern . 
because our states , with the blessing of the Community , did not deem it useful to have its own commercial fleet and allowed meticulous shipbuilding know @-@ how to disappear , we no longer have access to the clear traceability of vessels and we can see veritable coffin ships navigating our waters under flags of convenience , drifting according to the short @-@ term interests of the multinationals . 
it is absolutely essential to put an end to this floodtide of irresponsibility , irresponsible charterers , untraceable shipowners and lenient certification companies . 
so today we find ourselves in a state of utter confusion . 
obviously , such matters should be handled at world level , but the current international regulations of the IMO are far from adequate and are far too loose , and neither our own countries nor the Community have tried determinedly to make them stricter , despite previous disasters . 
admittedly , there is the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund , IOPCF , but it waters down the issue of liability and sets its ceiling at a quite inadequate level , which must be reviewed . 
the question of flags of convenience must be reviewed within the IMO . 
it is up to the Members States and the Community to take the necessary initiatives to achieve this . 
let me remind you that the Erika was sailing under a flag of convenience , that of a state applying for membership of the European Union . 
in addition , there are Community directives , but they are seldom applied , if at all , due to the insufficient number of national inspectors . 
this omission must be remedied as a matter of urgency . 
a directive on maritime safety has been in preparation for many years , but it is making very slow progress . 
the Commission is displaying intolerable inertia and unacceptable shortcomings . 
the date when the Commission is supposed to present its communication devoted to this key issue is put off time and again . it is now scheduled for July . 
the terms of the regulations to be enforced must be particularly clear and strict . 
I shall mention three issues that our group feels are priorities . 
firstly , the liability of owners of oil cargoes must be clearly established and the victims of pollution incidents must be able to claim on this liability unequivocally . 
the best form of prevention we can offer for the future is the sure knowledge we can offer charterers that they will be heavily penalised in civil , criminal and financial terms if they are not extremely vigilant regarding the matter of the safety of the vessels they select . 
secondly , the requirement of the double hull as a condition for access to Community waters must be enforced as soon as possible and cease to be put off indefinitely . 
thirdly , a strict age limit on vessels to be given access to Community waters must be established in the near future . 
this could be of a maximum of 15 years of age . 
thus , the Erika was refused access to American waters . 
if the European Community had done the same , a great disaster would have been avoided . 
let us ensure , Mr President , Commissioner , that this time we really do learn the lesson , even after the media hype and the shock of this House have died down . 
Mr President , Torrey Canyon , Olympic Bravery , Haven , Amoco Cadiz , Gino , Tanio , so many names we remember with horror . 
and now the Erika . 
whose turn is next ? 
twenty one years after Amoco Cadiz , this umpteenth oil slick , the seventh since 1967 , shows the irresponsibility of our successive rulers . 
the Atlantic West Coast once again is paying a high price for their inability to react , for their capitulation to the multinationals . 
it is hard to understand why the French and the Europeans allow something which the Americans refuse to accept , and why Europe , normally so quick to pass environmental legislation , has chosen to overlook the matter of maritime safety . 
and this is the result . 
the Erika , a vessel flying a Maltese flag , a floating rust bucket , classed amongst the most dangerous type of oil tankers , has contaminated more than 400 km of our coastline , a case of pollution even worse than that caused by the Amoco Cadiz . 
as an elected representative for the Loire @-@ Atlantique region , unfortunately , I can testify to this . 
there is nothing natural about these recurring disasters , they are the result of fate . 
they are the result of human thoughtlessness . 
what we have here is an ecological disaster . 
only the people cut off from the harsh reality of the grass roots could have any doubt about that . 
it is also an economic disaster for all the people who make their living from the sea and from tourism , fishermen , oyster farmers , shellfish farmers , people who make a living from the salt marshes , shopkeepers , etc . 
the Erika disaster must be the last in the series . 
first of all , we must shed some light on this shipwreck . 
why do we not appoint a parliamentary committee of inquiry or get Members of Parliament involved in the team of experts which has just been announced by the Commission ? 
next , as a matter of urgency , we muss pass legislation , firstly , regarding identification of the exact characteristics of goods transported . 
in fact , according to the experts , the oil the Erika was carrying was supposed to sink to the bottom and should never have reached the coast . 
we know what actually happened . 
next , reliable technical inspection must be established like the technical inspection compulsory in France for vehicles more than five years old . 
we must regulate the use of flags of convenience , make double hulls mandatory for the transport of polluting or dangerous materials , work on technological innovations in order to be able to process or recover hydrocarbons at sea . 
this would be a minimum requirement , I believe , on the dawn of the third millennium . 
I have also tabled a resolution on this subject on behalf of the EDD Group . 
Mr President , in the course of the last few years there has been a succession of serious tanker disasters world @-@ wide and the countermeasures taken have either been ineffective or not worth mentioning . 
it is particularly bad this time , not least because it has affected a major European State ; an incident which could happen again at any time . 
we urgently require a directive if we are to reduce these risks . the 15 clearly do not suffice . 
these guarantee - making no claim to be exhaustive - a minimum of 3 things . 
no tanker or freighter fit only for the scrap heap must ever put into any harbour within the European Union again . all those involved , including the transport agent , are responsible for any ensuing damage , and these individuals are to provide satisfactory assurances . 
this is the only way of affording the victims the opportunity to make their claims for compensation . 
however , we must aim higher in the long @-@ term , let there be no mistake about that . 
in other words , we need real cost @-@ effectiveness for our entire energy supply system . 
Mr President , may I start by saying that I would like to thank Commissioner Palacio very much for her clear , adequate and , at the same time , very firm response . 
many thanks for this . 
this also means that , in any case , I have a great deal of respect for the briefing note which she sent on 10 January but also for the action points which she announced today . 
the Erika disaster shows that when sound traffic and transport regulations are lacking at international and European level , nature and the environment come off second @-@ best . 
the damage suffered , also in ecological terms , cannot be expressed in money . 
hence also this joint debate involving transport and environmental management Members . 
during the Christmas break , when the Dutch media received attention for the Erika disaster , I had a look , just out of interest , on the Internet to see what arrangements were , in fact , already in place for the purpose of taking relevant measures , especially after Premier Jospin had said that Europe should do more . 
what I learned is that , actually , there is sufficient legislation in place but the problem is the lack of supervision . 
could I highlight a few points which have also been touched upon by the Commissioner ? 
first of all , the port @-@ state control , according to which 25 % of all ships require inspection . 
I think that this 25 % should not only be enforced but that it should also be ensured that more inspections take place . 
so this 25 % should be increased . furthermore , if a ship is no longer seaworthy , not only should the facts be examined , but a legal system should be introduced which states or recommends that the vessel should no longer be used . 
but this is not in place . 
Mr President , I would welcome some action in this area . 
finally , as far as the technical requirements for ships are concerned , some Members have already mentioned just now that , since 1999 in the United States , ships should in any case be double @-@ hulled . 
in my opinion , we should look further into this point , and I also think that the Marpol Treaty , which comes into effect in 2001 , should be looked at very closely . 
Mr President , I would like to take a brief , critical look at the accession negotiations with Malta and would like to express my gratitude to , and admiration for , the many NGOs that have at least rolled up their sleeves in order to save animals . 
Mr President , we have already had this discussion so many times in the past . 
we have achieved nothing so far , and we have been unable to reach agreement within the European Union . 
that is why I will only believe that there is any point to having this debate today if what we are all saying today , and what the Commissioner has announced here , actually leads to legislation being produced ; in other words , if you all go and say to your Heads of Government and Ministers : " you must push this through in the Council of Ministers " . 
allow me to say first that what we are talking about is an environmental catastrophe , which also impacts on the economy and threatens livelihoods . 
so what are we to do now ? 
I have no intention of talking about past events ; rather I want to look to the future . 
what are we to do now ? 
I will tell you a few things we should do . 
of course , we need double @-@ hulled vessels . 
that goes without saying , but it is something that will only work through in the medium and long term . 
so what do we need to happen immediately ? 
we need technical testing of ships , that is obligatory technical testing every two years , and no ship to be operated without the accompanying certificate . 
we need this at European level and internationally ; we need something like a TÜV , an organisation that undertakes technical testing of motor vehicles in Germany , which is compulsory every two years . 
if you do not have a certificate then you are not allowed to operate the vehicle . 
this is what we need for ships . 
thirdly , we need to carry out checks on these safety and insurance certificates in the ports , that is in every port of the European Union . 
any failure to produce these certificates must lead to the ship being laid up and prohibited from leaving the port , regardless of all the port charges . 
we must reach agreement here , in all the European Union ' s ports , from Marseilles , through to Rotterdam , to Wilhelmshaven , Cuxhaven , and wherever ships drop anchor . 
fourthly , we need the shipowner to bear liability , and not just to the tune of a derisory USD 12 million , but to the value of at least USD 400 million , to be covered per insurance certificate . 
we also need the country whose flag the ship flies to bear liability . 
we need to be sure that if need be , the country whose flag the ship is flying will accept liability . 
this would be a marvellous exercise in supervision ! 
I can assure you that those countries awarding flags would then take great care to avoid having to accept liability . 
in the fifth place , we need there to be a guarantee that these demands will apply to all ships using the ports and waterways of the European Union , and incidentally , that includes the candidate countries . 
last but not least , we need a long memory , for the issue of legislation will crop up on the agenda more frequently in the near future . 
environmental standards will be a recurring theme . 
I would not like to have someone coming and saying that these requirements will lead to job losses in the ports . 
the unions will have something to say as will industry . 
a long memory will serve us well , ladies and gentlemen . 
I am looking at all those of you who have not exactly been at the forefront of the environmental movement . 
just you go home and say : " we have not concerned ourselves with standards to date " . 
we need to have a long memory when it comes to the demands being made in the ports . 
we need to have a long memory when we say : " for once we are united , at last as far as port charges and requirements are concerned , and will not play one off against the other in the European Union . " 
if we succeed in this then perhaps we will be better off in a few years ' time ! 
Mr President , Mrs Roth @-@ Behrendt expressed very many of my own thoughts . 
we have now obtained a first @-@ rate enumeration of a variety of measures . 
but how do we make use of the sense of crisis to which this ecological disaster has led ? 
I would compare the situation with an earlier generation ' s introduction of the Plimsoll line , a marking which was introduced to prevent insurance fraud involving inferior vessels . 
where is the sense of crisis which generations before us had ? 
I consider that what we should adopt is the form of certification that Mrs Roth @-@ Behrendt speaks about , the identification in the form of green marks on tankers which certain harbours in Europe have brought up for discussion . 
we must also critically examine the classification societies . 
I do not think that we can accept their procedures . 
we need independent procedures and procedures involving public control . 
finally , I want to say that , when my country provides environmental aid to shipowners who wish to improve the quality of the environment , there are units within the Commission who regard this as prohibited aid to shipyards . 
within the Commission , the one hand does not know what the other hand is doing . 
it is not an acceptable procedure that measures to improve the environment , which are in keeping with the Commission ' s guidelines , cannot be taken because these are considered to constitute prohibited aid to shipyards . 
Mr President , we shall vote in favour of the GUE / NGL Group resolution because it denounces Total @-@ Fina ' s responsibility in this ecological disaster and I endorse the proposal that flags of convenience and the use of superannuated vessels should be prohibited , or that double hulls should be mandatory for oil tankers . 
I shall only add that it would be the least that Total could do to compensate for the direct and indirect damage caused by the oil slick . 
how can we stop similar disasters occurring in future if we do not institute draconian measures against the major oil corporations , and indeed many others who , in order to make more profit , take the risk of making the world uninhabitable ? 
how is it possible not to be outraged when a bank refuses to divulge the names of the Erika ' s owners on the grounds of professional confidentiality , without governments reacting ? 
the crux of the problem is that all governments , and indeed all the European institutions , acknowledge the right of major corporations such as Total @-@ Fina and its ilk to maximise profits whether it be harmful to their employees or to the environment . 
they accept the professional confidentiality of business and banks , even though this same confidentiality serves to conceal what are essentially criminal actions . 
in these circumstances , even the best resolutions will remain little more than appeals to principle which are powerless to limit the great corporations ' capacity to cause damage . 
Mr President , I am in favour of tightening up the legislation on port state control and on classification societies . 
however , we must stick to the facts . 
the ship Erika has been investigated four times in the course of the last two years . 
the answer cannot lie in the number of investigations but rather in guaranteeing the rigour with which the controls are undertaken . 
I have heard in the course of the discussions that have taken place in the last few weeks that the Member States do not have enough money to undertake the controls . 
I cannot accept this . 
if the Member States decide , in agreement with ourselves , that 25 % of ships are to be monitored on the basis of port state control , then they must also make the necessary personnel available . 
the controls must also be carried out in such a way that the inspector does not just go on board and check whether there are any fire extinguishers missing , rather there must be materials testing , for this ship obviously broke up on account of material fatigue . 
this can only be detected if controls undertaken are more rigorous . 
it should be our goal to ensure that port state controls are not superficial , but include materials testing . 
secondly , I also share the Commissioner ' s observations and would like to encourage her to continue down this path . 
if it should become apparent that one or more classification companies have provided reports by way of favours then they should be struck off the list of authorised classification companies . 
that is the only deterrent we have for preventing other classification companies from following suit . 
Mrs Roth @-@ Behrendt , we already have a TÜV ( organisation for safety testing ) for ships in the form of the classification companies . 
there are reputable companies too . 
you will be familiar with some reputable companies , our French fellow MEPs will be familiar with some reputable companies , but we must look carefully at exactly which companies do not fulfil requirements , and these must be struck off the list . 
finally , we should make it quite plain to Malta that if it wants to become a Member of this Community then by the time it accedes it must apply a standard in respect of registration and flag state control which completely fulfils our requirements , for the environment is a communal entity and not something that we can divide up ! 
Mr President , Commissioner , the Erika sank near my home and is still there , with 20 000 tonnes in its hold , the fate of which we are waiting to discover . 
it could have sunk anywhere . 
it happened to sink there , and Brittany , where I come from , should not apologise for the fact that geography has made it a peninsula , and the result is that it is often forced to clear up after shipwrecks . 
my first thoughts are for the 26 Indian sailors , who were saved but of whom nothing has been said . 
there could have been deaths in this disaster and safety at sea means , above all , men ' s lives . 
by now they are far away . 
it is a miracle that they were saved . 
so we are now experiencing the same thing that happened 20 years ago with the Amoco Cadiz ; a wreck on the North coast , a wreck on the South coast , a wreck on the West coast . 
things could well continue in the same way . 
then , sanctions must be harmonised between the 15 Member States ; they should not be different , but the same throughout the Union . 
we must be tougher on vessels flying flags of convenience , not because they are necessarily bad boats , but because amongst these boats there are many bad ones . 
we must improve information on all of the world ' s ships , but provision has already been made for this . we must also target those responsible and take a tougher line with them . 
with regard to this matter , I would like to know who owns the Erika , because the idea of a legal person under our law is one thing , but there are always real shareholders in the background . where are the Erika ' s owners ? 
perhaps they are in lovely villas by lovely beaches , getting a nice tan . 
we would like to know their names and their faces . 
finally , there must be improvements in the training of crews . 
in our society there is no such thing as zero @-@ risk , but we must at least ensure the greatest possible levels of safety . 
Mr President , I welcome the statement from the Commissioner . 
having spent a lot of time at sea myself I am well aware of the sea 's power and destructive force , which make a proper design and maintenance of ships and boats essential . 
I would like to express my sympathy with all those who are dealing with the consequences of the breaking up and sinking of the oil tanker Erika . 
this has been an environmental disaster as well as a deplorable waste of resources . 
however , before we rush in with a whole raft of new measures and new regulations , let us look carefully at the existing arrangements to be sure that they are being properly implemented . 
better to heed calls to amend and improve existing legislation than to embark on new proposals . 
in that context I support calls to strengthen port state control to ensure full and effective inspection . 
I support calls to ensure that the classification societies effectively monitor vessels ' structural conditions and are held accountable for their actions . 
calls for design improvements in hull construction , especially double @-@ hulled vessels , are sensible but take time to be implemented throughout the fleet . 
they are no substitute for rigorous regular inspection . 
Mr President , I would like to thank my Socialist colleagues , mainly in the committees on transport and the environment , who have not forgotten that this disaster also affects the fishing industry . 
because , as well as the irreparable damage to the environment , the damage to the ecosystem and losses in the tourist industry , the oil slick dealt a huge blow to the fishing industry , to the conservation of marine resources , and the damaged coast lines will take years to recover . 
it is no accident , Commissioner , that the affected areas are always those European regions which are least developed , those which eke out a meagre existence from tourism and fishing and which , in the majority of cases , do not have any other resources . 
these are the same areas , Commissioner , which already have to put up with the disrespectful activities of certain shipowners who empty the bilges of their vessels off their coasts , without any control whatsoever . 
I come from a region , Galicia , which has suffered similar accidents in the past . 
Brittany and Galicia , two European ' Lands Ends ' , fall constant prey to the irresponsibility of those who prefer not to comply with safety regulations and transport crude oil in vessels which in themselves constitute potential oil slicks . 
I therefore believe that it is necessary to act in two ways . 
on the one hand , by asking the Commission , within the scope of aid to the fishing industry , to implement special measures to compensate for the effects of this catastrophe on the industry in the areas affected , and also by asking them to demand , of international bodies and of themselves , tight controls on ships which sail under flags of convenience . 
in this regard , the current process of negotiations on Malta ' s accession to the European Union must be used to ensure that this country rigorously monitors the oil tankers which sail under its flag . 
on the other hand , prevention is essential . 
Portugal is a country which has clearly demonstrated its sensitivity to issues relating to the sea . 
I would ask the Portuguese Presidency to study the possibility of implementing a complete strategy for the prevention of maritime accidents at European level , using all the means at our disposal - technological , structural and socio @-@ economic - to prevent a disaster such as this from happening again in the future . 
lastly , Mr President , I would like to highlight the work carried out by the volunteers and local authorities , who reminded me of old times when , as the then Mayoress , I lived through similar situations . 
we must thank those who , while defenceless and lacking in resources , have battled courageously against the grave effects that this disaster has had on coastal regions , the marine ecosystem and European fishing stocks . 
Mr President , as chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , I should like to congratulate the Commission , and in particular Commissioner Loyola de Palacio , for her reaction to this incident , which has really shaken the whole of Europe . 
we , as the Committee on Transport , are prepared to discuss the Commission communication on the question of safety at sea and , of course , we are likewise prepared to discuss , at a later date , the legal implications of this communication . 
in addition , I should like to make a number of comments : 
first , the Commission was right to concentrate its investigation on the liability of RINA , the Italian shipping register , because we need to know if Community law was applied . 
that should be the starting point for our efforts . 
secondly , apart from the shipowners ' liability , it would be a good idea in such cases to examine the liability of the charterers , for example the oil companies which are also responsible for causing ecological disasters like this and , of course , for restoring the damage . 
once we have done that , our reaction to the ecological disaster is fully justified . 
however , this should not lead us to accuse the whole merchant marine , which is an important sector of the economy , covering as it does 1 / 3 of transport requirements , which is why our reaction needs to be measured : strict , but correct . 
I have no objection to examining an amendment making Community law stricter but , as other members have stressed , we need to start with application , because there is already a legal framework at European Union level and we must not lose sight of that fact . 
this legal framework is fairly advanced , at least if you compare it with what is happening at worldwide level and the Member States , under the supervision of the Commission , should endeavour to ensure that Community law is actually applied . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I believe that the unfortunate incident involving the Erika should in fact , as others have said this afternoon , constitute a decisive watershed which will see the end to this type of accident in the European Union where , since 1967 , there have been seventeen accidents involving large oil tankers ; more than one every two years . 
the economic and social damage , which we have spoken about today , in terms of the loss of jobs and fishing and tourist resources , is so great that they fully justify decisive and thorough action on the part of the Community institutions . 
Commissioner , I would also like to thank you for the speedy response of your department to this event and the measures which are being adopted and implemented . 
I trust that these measures will , in a few months , give rise to a clear and convincing legal instrument - a directive , possibly - which will put an end , once and for all , to these 21st Century pirates , who deprive us all of the wealth and beauty of the sea . 
I would like to comment on one of the measures to be taken , which was mentioned by the Commissioner and some of my colleagues . 
I am referring to the double hull , which consists of two layers of steel , with containers divided into two tanks . 
Commissioner , there are many experts who consider that the double hull is not sufficiently safe and propose the so @-@ called ' ecological hull ' in which case , in the event of an accident , the seawater penetrates the containers and , as a result of pressure , the oil is transferred to other tanks . 
Commissioner , I believe that it is time to opt for the safest technically possible measures . 
it is therefore not sufficient to merely reproduce the legislation in force in other countries . 
I believe that we can and must improve the existing legislation in this regard . 
any cost @-@ benefit analysis which truly takes into account all the harm occasioned to persons and the environment by these accidents , is bound to support this approach . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I think that first we should all congratulate ourselves on the procedure that has been adopted and which will lead us , after each of our respective political groups has rallied together and expressed its feelings , finally to produce a joint resolution . 
I think that given the dramatic circumstances , and as a matter of principle , it would be ill @-@ advised and inappropriate to hold several votes . 
I think that it is quite obvious , and this is the first conclusion that can be drawn from the Erika disaster , that public opinion would find it hard to understand that we regulate chocolate but do not regulate maritime transport . 
public opinion would find it hard to understand that we talk about a common judicial area , common airspace , a common rail area and a single market , but not a common maritime area . I therefore believe that this is a project which must be opened up with the absolute will to see it followed through and followed through in concrete terms . 
the Commissioner has suggested three main chapters which need to be drafted and brought into line with our legislation , in which we can set standards . 
I have also noted , to my great satisfaction , that even the groups advocating greater national sovereignty , or the eurosceptic groups are calling for Europe to regulate , and I think that this is in fact the right level to take action . 
we sometimes regulate things which could , by and large , remain subsidiary . 
in this area we must respond to public opinion . 
this is extremely important and everyone should feel concerned because we are , when all is said and done , on the global scale merely a peninsula . 
therefore , once our legislation has been brought into line , we must follow this up immediately with appropriate law . we must also put in place systematic controls and finally apply the ' polluter pays ' principle of responsibility which is , of course , supposed to be a deterrent . 
I have almost finished and I would like to say that I have personally requested a public hearing of the Committee on Transport , which would enable us to provide an immediate follow @-@ up to the Erika case and to suggest possible future considerations . 
I hope that all political groups will support us in our request for a public hearing . 
Mr President , the oil tanker Erika , the ownership of which is veiled by accommodation addresses on Malta and probably in Italy and Greece and which was hired by Total @-@ Fina for the transport of oil , foundered off the Breton coastline , with disastrous consequences . 
the implications for the environment and for the flora and fauna of the European maritime environment are enormous . 
the cause of the disaster must be sought in the weakened structure of the oil tanker . 
so people are doubtful about the safety of ships which carry dangerous or polluting goods . 
the International Maritime Organisation has issued international rules in this connection . 
States can carry out port inspections . 
in Europe , legislation is stricter and it is compulsory to inspect 25 % of the incoming vessels according to the port @-@ state control directive . 
however , it seems that none of the Member States meets this figure due to a lack of inspectors . 
it is clear that there is no lack of legislation . 
in my opinion , the Commissioner is quite right . 
where the scheme falters is in the enforcement of existing legislation . 
but how are we now going to enforce this if there is indeed a lack of inspectors , esteemed European Commission ? 
can the Commission provide an assurance that Directive 93 / 75 concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods will be implemented correctly in all Member States ? 
should its implementation not be more strictly monitored ? 
would it not be beneficial , in the short term , following the Rotterdam model , to inspect according to a points system in which , for example , account is taken of the ship ' s age , whether it is single or double @-@ hulled or whether it sails under a flag of convenience . 
in short , to give priority to older sub @-@ standard ships over ships which meet all quality requirements . 
the Erika was built at a Japanese shipyard and is single @-@ hulled . 
there are four more sister ships in service at present . 
construction of this type of ship was halted at the time because the risk of rusting was especially high . 
some of them also sail under the Maltese flag . 
are we waiting for the next accident to happen ? 
would sanctions not be appropriate , as the Commissioner stated , for the classification society ? 
RINA is currently the talk of the town . 
Malta is entering the accession negotiations . 
in my opinion , the European Union can only accept Malta if it is guaranteed that the Maltese flag will sail without an accident in future . 
I would be grateful if you could be disciplined since we are running out of time , and this delay is going to limit the time available for Questions to the Commission . 
Mr President , just before I went down into the Chamber , I received an e @-@ mail with a quite emotional description from a Swedish woman who had chosen to spend New Year ' s Eve on the French coast in Brittany instead of staying at home and celebrating with her relatives . 
like many other hundreds of volunteers , she had seen the destruction , washed birds and cleaned up after the people responsible who were not to be found on the coast on those evenings and nights when they really should have been required to be there . 
like so many others , I too wonder where the people responsible are . 
where are the shipowners and those who order the shipments when these disasters occur ? 
perhaps it might be time for us to begin to consider establishing a common environmental authority which could deal with this type of crime . 
this is not the first time we have seen oil slicks , whether intentional or unintentional . 
( the President cut the speaker off ) 
I would like to thank Mrs Grossetête and her colleagues for bringing this motion before Parliament . 
the environmental disaster of the sinking of the Erika off Brittany and the spillage of 10 000 tonnes of oil has been widely reported in the British media . 
although Britain and France have had their differences recently , I can assure you that there is considerable sympathy in my country for all those affected . 
TV pictures of the damage done to your coastline and wildlife , in particular birds and the already dwindling fish stocks , have brought back memories of similar British disasters , such as the Torrey Canyon in 1967 , and have prompted many British volunteers to help . 
I salute these joint efforts to repair the damage . 
this is clearly a problem for all EU coastlines which will require imaginative solutions . 
instead of allowing the costs of these disasters to fall on the communities most affected and insurance markets such as Lloyds of London , we must develop new technologies to retrieve from the sea much more than 10 % of the lost oil . 
there is currently little financial incentive for this when the insurance market picks up the tab . 
ultimately , the polluter must pay . 
in addition we must build on the Council directive dealing with enforcement of international standards for ship safety and pollution prevention by ensuring that the inspection goal of 25 % of ships calling at EU ports is met and that a high standard of inspection is delivered . 
moreover , although I am not opposed to shipowners registering their vessels in their country of choice , I believe there is a need for stricter application of international regulations . 
rather than banning flags of convenience , which would violate the right of every sovereign state to have a merchant fleet , under the 1995 EU directive on port state control , national maritime authorities must impose more effective sanctions on flag states which fail to carry out their international treaty obligations . 
I sincerely hope that , particularly during the French presidency later this year , the Commission and the Council will look carefully at all these options , and I heartily commend this resolution to Parliament . 
Mr President , it feels quite strange to be standing here again today , as I have been doing at regular intervals for almost ten years , and all because of an accident caused by human hand and by a lack of human competence , and not by force majeure . 
the victims are waiting outside . 
they want answers . 
they do not want any more promises that we then fail to keep , or to see any efforts that we then fail to follow through . 
the citizens are right to ask : " do our regions now count amongst those which are lost forever ? " 
who will provide us with new jobs ? 
when will those responsible at last understand that sparing resources is not something we do for fun ; nor is it just a question of creating a system for its own sake or a new study group , rather it is a joint European challenge . 
that is why I welcome Mrs Palacio ' s action plan with open arms . 
it is equally important to note that " prevention is better than cure " . 
but there is an art to that as well . 
deploying the German multipurpose ship " Neuwerk " - it is right outside my front door in Cuxhaven - entailed the swift provision of European neighbourly help . 
we are particularly in the debt of those who undertook the difficult deployment of all their crew . 
valuable experiences were gained , and also the knowledge that we cannot master such environmental disasters using state @-@ of @-@ the @-@ art technology alone . 
we are therefore right to demand improved controls , sanctions and preventive measures . 
I have been fighting for a European environmental coastguard service for almost ten years , here in Parliament . 
the issue is as topical as it was before . 
furthermore , I will not withhold my support but will endeavour , alongside my fellow MEPs , to bring about improvements and logical solutions within the framework of European and international cooperation . 
before the end of March , I propose to present a communication in which I will possibly present legislative texts , that is to say , amendments of specific directives so that discussions may begin in the Council and in Parliament . 
they are environmentally sensitive areas , but they are also sensitive from the point of view of social development and territorial equilibrium . and therefore we must take the utmost care to prevent the recurrence of a similar situation . 
Mrs Roth @-@ Behrendt said that nothing had ever been done . 
in fact , I believe that things have been done by the Commission , but there is still more to do . 
this was demonstrated by the Americans who , after the Exxon Valdez disaster , within one year , adopted enormously rigorous and tough legislation , which threatens , as I said earlier , to divert ships unacceptable to American ports towards Europe . 
in Europe , after the Amoco Cadiz , or the Urquiola on the Spanish coast , in 1976 , or the Torrey Canyon , in the same year , or the many other cases there have been , we really began to legislate after 1994 and 1995 , particularly in the last few years . 
during these years , the emphasis has mainly been on the safety of passenger transport . 
that is the reality . 
in my opinion , we now have to make a significant and urgent effort to confront new problems , also deriving from American legislation , which emphasise the safety of the transport of dangerous goods in the maritime sector . 
I have referred to a series of issues which I will lay out in more detail , if you wish , in an appearance before a special committee on this matter , or when I present the actual initiatives in the coming months . 
my intention is - and I insist - for us to begin discussions after the end of March , also coinciding with the Council of Ministers , and , of course , before the end of the six @-@ month period of the Portuguese Presidency , for us to have texts to discuss . 
flags of convenience are one problem , but are not the only one . 
the Romanian flag is not a flag of convenience but , nevertheless , that country has an extremely high number of incidences at inspections ; more than the countries with flags of convenience . 
Malta and Cyprus have asked to join the Community . 
we must be demanding on this issue and we are negotiating to this end . 
this will oblige us to reconsider the registers in the European Union , and to deal with the notorious problem , which will no doubt arise again , of the aim of a Community register . 
I believe that this will be difficult but , in any event , we should carry out a review of the registers of the European Union countries . 
as for the inspections , very much a key question , the first thing we have to consider is how the current legislation has worked , as Mr Hatzidakis has said . 
we already have legislation . 
according to the information which the Commission services have given me , this legislation is not adequately applied in many Member States due to a lack of personnel , means and inspectors . 
the problem is not that only 25 % are inspected , but rather how we select , how we find , the ships which constitute the highest risk , through the age of the ships and the risk history of the flags . 
unfortunately , the 25 % often consists of flags which are expected to fulfil the requirements : in this way inspections are quicker and the work is carried out more easily . 
therefore , more than making amendments , we will have to implement measures to control what is already being done , apart from some supplementary requirements with regard to reviews , especially in relation to the age of the different vessels . 
and that is why we have SOLAS ( the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea ) and MARPOL ( the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships ) , two conventions of the International Maritime Organisation which will eventually have to be made mandatory in all Member States of the Union and whose application will have to be monitored . 
with regard to the question of Union inspectors , I believe that the principle of subsidiarity justifies the idea that these inspections be carried out by the Member States , which does not mean that the Commission does not have to ensure that the States carry out their duty adequately . 
lastly , I would like to stress the issue of liability . 
not only in terms of maximum sums insured , which I believe should be similar to those in the United States . 
we have set a figure of USD 180 million ; in the United States they are talking about USD 1 billion as a maximum ceiling for covering claims payments . 
I believe we have to increase the current amount so as to move closer to levels in the United States , but that we also have to reconsider the sums insured on vessels and , therefore , the liability of shipowners , and also to hold liable those who charter ships , which is to say the owners of the cargo . 
unless we require that the owners of the cargo be held liable , we will never , in my opinion , resolve these problems . 
I will end now . I will not expand further . 
we will have the opportunity to do so on other occasions . 
but , obviously , as some speakers have said - and I thank all of you for your totally positive and relevant interventions - we cannot allow a situation where , within one , two or three years , we have to say once again that we have not done what we should have done . 
as for me , I can say , after having debated it in the College of Commissioners , that the Commission is prepared to present the necessary legislative measures , amendments and directives to Parliament and the Council , in order to equip ourselves with the greatest possible level of safety . 
the political will of this Parliament is required - and I can see that I can count on this - as well as that of the Council of Ministers . 
thank you very much , Commissioner . 
we have taken good note of your intentions . 
I have received 8 motions for resolution , in accordance with Rule 37 ( 2 ) , to close the present Commission statement . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place on Thursday at 12.00 p.m. 
storms in Europe 
the next item is the Commission statement on the storms in Europe . 
Mr Barnier has the floor on behalf of the Commission . 
Commissioner , I would like to thank you for the ideas you have put forward , particularly on the very specific proposals concerning the people affected and who are expecting a lot from the European Union , in terms of the help that we can offer them . 
in the days immediately following this terrible storm I wrote to you myself with a request for you to ask the French authorities to redraw the boundaries of Objective 2 so that all areas devastated by the storms in France and elsewhere could benefit from Objective 2 . 
I think that you must have done so , because you have not mentioned it . 
in fact , we all know that anyone who does not live within the perimeter of an Objective 2 region will find it all but impossible to obtain aid . 
we should therefore put this situation right immediately . 
you also know that this will not only be a short @-@ term problem , but also a medium and long @-@ term one . 
let me explain . 
I was in the region of Lorraine at the time of this terrible storm which destroyed around 20 % of deciduous forest . 
indeed , for some ' forestry ' districts , which have lost 20 % of their trees , this represents a huge loss . 
we know , for example , that it takes between 150 and 200 years for a tree to reach maturity , so the loss these towns will suffer will not be spread over one , two or five years , but over many more . 
the towns concerned estimate that it will be spread over 40 years . 
I think that consequently it will be extremely difficult indeed to compensate these rural towns through subsidies for losses in their financial revenues . 
I think that this is something which we should continually bear in mind so that we do not lose sight of it in our various policies . 
it is true that the problem of the forestry sector is an extremely complex one . 
indeed , you spoke of releasing funds for timber storage on the grounds that its price must not depreciate . 
on the other hand , districts which have not been affected by the storms will also suffer , as the National Forestry Office has decided to freeze cuts in forestation for four years . 
those districts which have not suffered losses will therefore see their incomes decrease in any case . 
I am telling you all of this to illustrate how complex the problem is , and I thank the Commission once again for extending their analysis of this situation as far as it could . 
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that , although there has indeed been an economic disaster , the real ecological catastrophes are still to come . 
as you yourself said , Commissioner , these disasters or storms do not always have natural causes , and we think that these are the first signs of climate change . 
we should therefore review our policies in order to take account of this fact . 
Mr President , everyone who has travelled here by car , train or aeroplane , has been able to see the extent of the damage , particularly in France , caused by hurricanes of a completely unprecedented violence which struck Europe at the end of last month . 
what can the Members of the European Parliament do when faced with such a widespread disaster ? 
firstly , I would like to pay tribute to the mayors and local representatives who , on a daily basis , have had to reassure their constituents , organise volunteers and cooperate with the public services . 
they have earned the confidence of their fellow @-@ citizens . 
next , I would like to thank the emergency services and the armed forces of the Union ' s Member States who , in a fine example of intergovernmental cooperation , came to support the efforts of their French colleagues . 
I would also like to consider the paradoxical situation we have with regard to emergency aid . 
if this disaster had taken place in Guatemala or Turkey , we could have immediately used the Community budget to help the victims , but in our own countries nothing of the kind is possible because there is no suitable budget line with which to do so . 
we must also ask the Commission not to prevent local authorities and individual States from coming to the assistance of businesses affected by the disaster by applying Community competition rules too strictly . 
I am thinking in particular here of fish and shellfish companies , which have been particularly badly hit . 
as you said , Commissioner , we must ensure that there is compensation for the forced cessation in activity and that appeals can be made to FIFG for investments that have been totally wiped out . 
beyond this , I think that implementing MAGPs in a mechanical way will no longer be appropriate in the coastal regions that have been affected . 
I therefore ask the Commission to stop doing so and , on the contrary , to help those who make their living from the sea to proceed to new investments , which they urgently need . 
Mr President , the storms which devastated France during the night between 26 and 27 December have caused , as has been said , 90 deaths and damage to a value of FF 75 billion , i.e. EUR 11 billion . 
almost three weeks after the disaster , several thousand people were still without electricity and telephones , 500 000 hectares of forestry land , or 100 million cubic metres of forest , have been ruined , and our historical heritage has also been affected , as the sad example of the park at the Palace of Versailles demonstrates . 
it seems quite natural that given such a disaster , national and European solidarity should go to the help of the devastated regions and those people who have been worst affected . 
we know full well that what you are doing , Commissioner , and that is , limiting yourself to giving us the hypothetical and remote possibility of benefiting from the Structural Funds of the new Objective 2 or from the provisional Objectives 2 or 5b . 
these are the terms of the written answer you gave Mr Martinez on 11 January 2000 . 
I can show you a copy if you wish . 
we would understand completely if you were not able to say anything else given the irresponsible attitude not only of the Commission , but also of this Parliament , and if you cannot do anything because there is no legal or financial framework for doing so . 
but for pity ' s sake , and I am not saying this to you in an aggressive way , please do not present appropriations which have previously been earmarked under an unrelated regional policy as aid for victims of the storms . 
as a matter of urgency , therefore , we must restore , within the framework of a supplementary budget , the budget line which was allocated to us for natural disasters . 
we must use the Berlin Summit aid appropriations and we must change the forestry policy implemented in most countries in the Union . that , however , is another problem altogether . 
Mr President , Commissioner , Europe has undergone a tough ordeal at the start of this millennium . 
I would first like to express my heartfelt condolences to the families in mourning as a result of the appalling weather conditions that devastated Europe in December . 
these storms were an unprecedented ecological disaster for our forests . 
I hope you do not mind if I make particular mention of the forests in my region , Lorraine , which have suffered enormous destruction . 
I would like to congratulate the regional authorities , the volunteers and the public services on the fantastic way in which they rallied round but , unfortunately , their troubles are not yet over . 
it is Europe 's duty to support them and thereby complement the efforts of the governments of Member States affected by the disaster . 
I welcome Mr Barnier ' s statement and I also welcome the measures which the Commission has announced . 
I am certainly not forgetting the economic dimension of this matter , as the timber industry has been devastated and a whole population is suffering the tragic effects of this . 
the Community action programme for civil protection , established by a Council decision on 9 December , was launched on 1 January 2000 . 
I ask Member States to grasp this opportunity . this programme must work at full capacity . 
although it may have been effective in certain areas - and I do not doubt the sincerity of Commissioner Barnier ' s words - unfortunately it is still in its infancy when it comes to forestry . 
our priority , as we wait for Community @-@ level funds to be freed up , is for material aid in terms of partnership exchanges between Member States . 
it is therefore a matter of urgency to improve forest roads , and to repair them as quickly as possible . 
lending forestry equipment and making personnel qualified in forestry management available are also covered by this measure . 
our next challenge will be to prevent the occurrence of phytosanitary problems which could result from having to abandon large amounts of wood in the forest , and from the pollution of ground water through having to store such large quantities of wood . 
finally , it is essential that we slow down the logging of standing wood , in order to give priority to the purchase of windfalls . 
these timber sales should be supported by strong media coverage in Member States . 
this aid for gathering timber is , of course , only the first stage of an aid package , which will take the form of aid for reforestation and aid for the development of rural areas . 
I ask the Commission to incorporate this into a study of how the situation should be managed now that the emergency is over . 
this is a very sad opportunity for Europe to renew its forestry heritage in line with the role that this plays in wildlife and nature conservation and in our economies . 
it is therefore a time for solidarity and cooperation between Member States in the face of an ecological and economic calamity . 
if this solidarity is to have been worthwhile , it is up to Europe to propose priority actions for safeguarding the timber industry . 
hurricane " Lothar " should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done - something which is discussed at a very superficial level here - , but to switch to the precautionary principle , under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too . 
current programmes must be accelerated . 
for example , as they stand , the Commission ' s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto . 
the trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem , it shelves it . 
the entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term . 
we must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources , as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases . 
the new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject , and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate ! 
Commissioner , Mr President , Lothar was a quite ordinary name hitherto . however , it has now achieved notoriety . 
the hurricane of the same name swept across Europe claiming numerous victims , mainly in France and Germany , but also in Switzerland , leaving a trail of destruction in its wake . 
the wind triumphed over electricity pylons , roofs , traffic signs and , ultimately over the forest . 
we have heard that in a short space of time the storm left us with approximately 120 million cubic metres of solid timber , and this is only an estimate . 
I have listened to you very attentively Commissioner , and welcome with open arms the fact that you are intending to go and see for yourself the effects the catastrophe has had in France and in Germany . 
if Mrs Schreyer is to visit the Black Forest sometime in the next few days , then any one farmer might ask her how the Commission and Europe would be able to help him as an individual . 
what would you say to the forestry manager if his enterprise happened not to be in an Objective 2 region , or in a 5b region ? 
what answer will the Commission give , when it is on the scene , when you tell the forestry worker that we support road construction and dam @-@ building , and we want to rebuild our cultural heritage and create tourist attractions etc . ? all this is well @-@ intentioned advice . 
however , I come from an area in Northern Germany where the forestry industry predominates and I can tell you that we are already feeling the effects of the immense damage . 
the thinning @-@ out we need is not being attended to ; the forests are not being tended to the requisite degree . 
what we need the Commission to do as a matter of urgency is to approve national aid , so as to avoid the competition issue being raised again at a later date . 
Mr President , Commissioner , permit me , first of all , to make reference to two facts . 
firstly , at the beginning of 1999 , NATO , with the participation of most Member States of the European Union , flattened Kosovo with bombs in the name of freedom . 
we are now endeavouring , at huge cost , to get the country back on its feet again and help its people , and rightly so . 
secondly , at the end of 1999 unbelievable storms raged bringing death and destruction to vast tracts of the EU . 
the Commission in Brussels responded to the victims ' cries for help with a shrugging of shoulders . 
" we do not have the wherewithal for that , " they said . 
this is wrong ! and no one can comprehend this attitude . 
certainly those who fear for their livelihood are at a complete loss . 
the citizens of the European Union expect solidarity , also from within this Community . 
I say they have a right to solidarity . 
indeed the European Parliament must make it its business to uphold this right in hours of need . 
I urge the Commission not to keep having to be asked and to provide assistance for the victims of the storms . 
it knows the ins and outs of aid provision better than any local organisation or authority . 
I call upon you , ladies and gentlemen , to support me in bringing home to the Commission the fact that what most Brussels offices are lacking is not so much the wherewithal for providing aid as the good will . 
permit me one further comment . although it was less evident in the case of the consequences of the storm , the tanker disaster off the French coast has made it very clear that we need to give the Commission a helping hand on another matter . 
the European Union needs rules governing environmental liability as a matter of urgency . 
we can no longer tolerate a situation where the general public has to foot the bill for damage that has often been caused by individuals involved in criminal machinations . 
we must make the perpetrators liable for all manner of damage done to our environment . 
then , for example , people will think twice before transporting oil in a tanker that is about to fall apart . 
when , in 1994 , over five years ago that is , I joined the Legal Affairs Committee in this Parliament , I became rapporteur for the environmental liability dossier . 
to this day I am still awaiting an initiative from the Commission , which will actually enable me to start work . 
it is a scandalous state of affairs that must be ended with all haste , and I hope that February does not see this dossier being postponed yet again ! 
Mr President , Commissioner , the storms that took place at the turn of the millennium should galvanise us into thinking about certain problems . 
it has become clear that mankind continues to be unable to avoid natural disasters . 
there have always been natural disasters and there always will be . 
of course , there is a need for solidarity here . 
there is certainly a need for European civil protection , and the EU budget must also provide for a budget line covering natural disasters . 
but , most importantly , it is only ever man that makes the mistakes as far as the nature @-@ mankind relationship is concerned - despite the fact that the same mistakes have often been made down through the centuries - and never nature , for nature cannot make mistakes . 
the extent of the damage caused on this occasion was determined by the population density , the type of infrastructure , and , of course , the many monocultures , if we are talking forests . 
of course , I am in favour of providing assistance where we can . 
but when it comes to aid , we ought to bear in mind that perhaps in future , more emphasis should be placed on laying electricity and telephone cabling underground . 
we must take account of smaller cycles and plant stable mixed woodland when undertaking reforestation , rather than monocultures . 
the most important subject for discussion in this context is the climate . 
to this day , we in Europe remain in the privileged position of having the Gulf Stream , and the Gulf Stream still does its stuff . 
America and south @-@ east Asia are having a much worse time of it as far as climate and storms go . 
we are fortunate in having the Gulf Stream . but in common with others , we too are having to endure the greenhouse effect . 
this is partly the work of human hand , as difficult as it is to demonstrate climate change using calculations . 
we must take more account of the guidelines produced at the Kyoto environmental conference . 
we must reduce CO2 emissions , employ renewable energies , and generally make enquiries , in this connection , as to how the forests of Europe are faring . 
Mr President , I think we should firstly express our sorrow for the victims . 
this is an irreparable loss . 
secondly , we welcome the solidarity between the French departments and citizens , and the solidarity of other countries with France , which is the country worst affected . 
as I have little time , Mr President , I would like to touch upon two elements of our resolution . 
I believe that the first one was implicitly recognised by the Commissioner in his speech when he wondered whether these catastrophes are natural or not . 
that is to say that experts are ever more convinced that climate change and human activities , in general terms , are linked to the increase seen in natural disasters in recent years . 
in fact , over the last decade , the temperature has risen more than in the rest of the century . 
therefore Europe must be clearly committed to the Kyoto Protocol and make specific proposals . 
secondly , I was rapporteur for civil protection in Europe and I completely agree with the Commissioner ' s proposal to create a European civil protection body . 
furthermore , we should utilise an extraordinary budget line , since this is an extraordinarily catastrophic situation . 
first of all , we would like to express sympathy with all the families and communities that lost members in this terrible tragedy . 
it is really the loss of life that makes this particular disaster an extraordinary one by European standards . 
it is regrettable that we do not have any instrument with which to give assistance in situations like this . 
I want to thank the Commissioner for his comprehensive statement on the subject and his suggestion that we might indeed organise ourselves at European level to give assistance to Member States and regions that have tragedies like this . 
that is important . 
the other thing we should remember is that we did have a budget line in the past . 
it was very small . 
it was not able to do very much but it was repeatedly abused by Members of this House proposing action when the disasters were not even major . 
officials and ministers from Member States were coming to Brussels , whispering with the Commission and getting a few euros and making a political point by bringing aid back to their constituencies . 
so there was not much sympathy for this budget line when it was abolished . 
I think we should reinstate this budget line . 
when we had the earthquake in Greece , which was a big disaster , the Community had no instrument with which to offer its sympathy or solidarity to the Greeks . 
the same when the floods came in France and the same again now . 
these are major disasters , we should have an instrument , we do not have it . 
we should reinstate that instrument and we should make the rules tight so that only in situations where grave disasters occur will we call up this particular instrument . 
we can save it from year to year and ensure that when something major happens we have an instrument to deal with it . 
we did not have it so bad in Ireland this time although we have had many serious wind storms on the Atlantic . 
we had floods in Ireland also and I want to express my sympathy with the people in Ireland who suffered from these . 
ladies and gentlemen , none of us must forget what has taken place . 
it is true that there was a joint decision by the Council and Parliament seeking to discontinue emergency lines . 
it is nevertheless the case that not a penny more than what was allocated before the storm will now be freed up to demonstrate practical , active solidarity . 
it is nothing more than the States playing at taking from Peter in order to give to Paul . 
this is inadequate , and I am personally delighted that Mr Barnier has stated an idea close to my heart and which , moreover , I expressed when I told the press in Bordeaux what I am hoping for , and that is the establishment of a reinforced policy of European civil security . 
if the European citizenship that we all want to see is to come into being , if the mandate that our President , Mrs Fontaine has staked on a closer relationship between the Union and Europe ' s citizens is to be effective , our citizens must be able to feel that we are acting with some urgency . 
Mr President , Commissioner , when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation , we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly . 
nevertheless , the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us . 
anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well . 
I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously , and at the same time , from my position here in this Chamber , point to how important it is to support these regions and people . 
each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow . 
what we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible . 
for it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long . 
for instance , it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle ' s larvae , and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have . 
that is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives . 
decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry . 
for we all know how long it takes a tree to grow . 
the calculations are in decades rather than years . 
in addition , I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production , for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions . 
I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared ..... 
( the President cut the speaker off ) 
Mr President , I extend our deepest sympathy to all of those who were affected by the storms . 
sometimes within the Community we do not actually have an awareness of what is happening in other countries . 
we had very little coverage in Ireland of the tanker that sank . 
I was asked to highlight the result of the storms in Ireland . 
we had high winds and unprecedented , prolonged rainfall which , adding to existing difficulties , resulted in thousands of acres being submerged , sometimes , in up to 15 feet of water . 
we experienced the human misery of flooded homes and farms , no sanitation , no drinking water and the environmental disasters of E.coli @-@ infected water . 
I talked with farmers whose ewes were aborting their lambs due to drinking the infected water . 
natural habitats were destroyed . 
so I ask that Ireland be remembered in this particular case . 
I thank the Commissioner and support him very much in his European protection force . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I second all those who expressed their solidarity with the storm victims . 
I would just like to point again to the impact on the forestry industry throughout Europe . 
for the storms will have major implications for the forestry industry in all areas of Europe , and I believe we need , in the long @-@ term , to give thought to how problems of this kind are to be dealt with in future . 
we certainly do not want market organisation for forests , but maybe we should set up a system , perhaps in conjunction with the private insurance sector , which will make it possible to mitigate the implications for the victims in some way . 
unfortunately , we can expect there to be repeat performances of this kind of major disaster in the future . 
as has already been mentioned here , there are indications - no proof , but clear indications - that the increase in storms world @-@ wide has to do with the climate catastrophe . 
of course , the scientists do not all see eye to eye on this yet , but the majority of them are fairly convinced that if we continue to emit greenhouse gases as we are doing , these storms will , of course , hit us much harder still at the dawn of this new century . 
I believe now is the right time for us to think back once again to a proposal put forward in this Chamber by a former fellow MEP of ours , Tom Spencer . he suggested that rather than giving storms the names of men or women , we should name them after the perpetrators of the greenhouse effect - he proposed the oil companies at the time . 
however , an exception should certainly be made in the case of Shell and BP , for they have changed policy and do not just base their sales on fossil fuels which are damaging to the climate , rather they also invest in forms of energy that have future viability . 
we must be aware of this connection ; I do not support those who make sweeping statements to the effect that the greenhouse effect is to blame for this storm , but one thing we can be relatively certain of is that we have reason to fear further catastrophes if we do not soon alter our course ! 
food safety 
the next item is the communication on food safety and a statement by the Commission . 
Mr President , I thank the Commissioner for his statement . 
I would like to welcome the division of labour that you have made and that food management will remain the responsibility of the European institutions , including the Commission and Parliament . 
that is very much the right approach . 
but there is one word that I have not heard you mention here tonight . 
I hope that we can thrash this out . 
we need a body of food law , as you have said , and we need to agree this together . 
it is very important that we include liability in that process . 
that is the one word I am talking about . 
the problem so far is that taxpayers paid when something went wrong . 
that cannot continue . 
when we have a crisis we have to clearly identify in advance that if there is a problem , those responsible are liable . 
Mr President , it is a very worthwhile White Paper and you will not hear a word from me on the food safety authority . 
my questions relate to the positive list for animal feed . 
you are unclear about this in your White Paper . 
what is your schedule , how long will it take you to produce a positive list ? 
when will the same requirements be applied to animal feed and the production thereof as apply to the production of food and the monitoring thereof ? 
the final part of my question is as follows : when will BSE testing be binding in all Member States ? 
that is another point , i.e. the question of obligation , which you were somewhat unclear on in your White Paper . 
thank you , Commissioner , for your statement . 
I think the lines that you have set up regarding the Food Safety Authority are a recognition of reality . 
the Member States would not accept a regulatory agency , so there is not very much point in your proposing one . 
some sectors of the food industry clearly need better regulation and that is clear on the issue of feed and animal feedingstuffs . 
however , as chairman of a committee which looks as though it will be concerning itself almost entirely with food over the next three years , I have to ask : if Europe has the safest food control system , as you have said , why do we need 24 new directives and regulations and 20 new amending directives ? 
secondly , will this not compound the problem of over @-@ regulation from Brussels and under @-@ implementation in the Member States ? 
we look forward to a fruitful dialogue with you on this . 
regarding enlargement : what plans does the Commission have to involve the applicant states in debates on these new laws , given that the Commission clearly expects the laws envisaged in the White Paper to form part of the acquis communautaire by 2003 ? 
President , first of all I would like to thank Mrs Ahern , Mrs Roth @-@ Behrendt and Mrs Jackson for their words of support in relation to the White Paper . 
I find that encouraging and I look forward to further discussions with them and other Members of Parliament in relation to the issues that they raised . 
Mrs Ahern raised the issue of liability . 
that of course is not specifically addressed in the White Paper except for the reference to the fact that we will be putting in place provisions - and there are already some - relating to the issue of traceability . 
once that is done , issues such as liability can be addressed . 
I have not given full and detailed consideration to issues relating to and surrounding questions of liability despite my background , but it seems to me that there may very well be subsidiarity issues involved . 
but I have taken on board your suggestion and I will give it further consideration . 
Mrs Roth @-@ Behrendt asked me about establishing a positive list . 
that is one of the issues that we address in the annex to the legislation , and the intention is to establish a positive list for feed material . 
at the moment the list is , as I say , a negative list and it is added to as required . 
the establishment of the positive list is one of the issues set out in the annex with a date attached to it , 2002 in fact . 
the rapid alert system for feed is something that we have identified as a gap in the legislation . 
rapid alert is there for food but not for feed . 
this is unfortunate and it is wrong , and we believe that it is important to identify it and to establish legislation to close that gap and that will be done . 
the work in relation to BSE in Member States and the establishment of random testing to identify levels of infectivity in Member States is ongoing , I know that Mrs Roth @-@ Behrendt has asked me this question before and I said I thought it was coming along quickly but I understand it is in inter @-@ service consultation in the Commission and work is currently under way . 
I hope that the next time you ask me the question , I will be in a position to give you more detailed information . 
Mrs Jackson has focused on the fact that there are 24 new and 20 amending pieces of legislation and asks whether this compounds over @-@ regulation . 
I should say that the pieces of legislation that we have identified are intended to close gaps in existing legislation . 
it is not so much a matter of the establishment of new regimes or further regulation , although that is part of it , but of identifying where there are gaps and loopholes in the chain from farm to table and closing them . 
there is a reference to applicant states and that is something that we have in mind . 
standards of food safety and indeed other areas of safety are obviously of critical importance in relation to enlargement and this is a matter that I have drawn to the attention of Mr Verheugen . 
Commissioner , the ignorance of certain Member States has landed us in a major food crisis here in Europe , and I am afraid that once more I have cause to be angry at the fact that again no Members of the Council are in attendance , and that on the day that you present your interesting report . 
what I would very much like you to tell me is how you intend to guarantee that a new authority of this kind , whatever name it goes by , will be given influence over the Council , who in this authority will have the say in matters , and who will issue orders . 
of course , we are not in a position to dictate anything in terms of content , but I would insist on Parliament retaining the rights accorded it under Maastricht and Amsterdam , and even extending them . 
I very much fear that we are to have yet another authority that flies through Europe anonymously like a satellite ; an authority of this kind would be anathema to me and I hope it does not come to that . 
I also welcome the White Paper . 
but do you envisage that the Food Safety Agency will have enough teeth to prevent something like the beef war that we have had and France 's refusal to lift the ban ? 
you mentioned the Commission being able to withhold grants and subsidies from countries who are acting in the way that France is acting . 
would you also propose that the Commission could give interim payments for instance , similar to the one that the British farmers are asking for at the moment ? 
Mr President , you said during last week ' s information session that it was your view that any future EU food agency should not be located on the periphery , but you did not mention what that periphery was . 
for example , the work of the EU unit located in Dublin has shown that physical distance is no barrier these days to communication and having an effective influence on matters . 
it has been suggested that the most important tasks of a future food authority will be to gather , publish and coordinate data , make recommendations for improved food safety , and - as you said - collect scientific data and popularise that information for consumers . 
all this will be managed with the help of modern technology in any area of the European Union . 
I would ask you on what you base your ideas for a location ? 
in relation to the makeup of the authority : first of all it will employ in @-@ house scientists who will liaise with and consult with scientists who are experts in the particular field that is being considered at any particular time . 
in addition to that , the food safety authority will have a board . 
you will notice in the White Paper that we have not been specific about the makeup of that board . 
this is an issue which I expect will be discussed between Parliament and the Commission over the next few weeks and months . 
I envisage that the board 's membership will be made up from stakeholders or representatives of stakeholders . 
its function will have to be set out in detail in the proposal I will bring to the Commission in September . 
we have not done that yet but it will be done in September . 
I do not expect that the board will have any function in directing the scientists how to do their work . 
that would erode the independence of the scientific advice . 
but it would have an overall remit , particularly , for instance , in requesting the authority to investigate particular areas requiring research . 
Mr Florenz asks whether Parliament will have a say in that . 
that is an issue for consideration and discussion . 
there may be a number of views on that . 
some may take the view that it would be inappropriate for Parliament or Members of Parliament - or indeed Parliament nominees - to be members of the board . 
others may take the view that it would be a valuable exercise if Parliament , through nominees or even MEPs themselves , were able to have an opportunity to discuss what issues should be investigated . 
it is an issue for consideration but it has not been ruled out . 
Mr Florenz also raised the question of anonymity . 
I am happy that he raised it because it is particularly important for this authority to have a high profile . 
it must be visible . 
it must be known . 
consumers in the European Union must know of the existence of the food authority . 
the CEO of the authority would be somebody who typically would be known , who might appear regularly on television talking about issues relating to food , particularly in relation to the good news stories surrounding food in relation to nutrition , diet and such issues , so that if another food crisis comes along consumers will be aware of the existence of the authority . 
they will be aware that they have heard from the authority before under other circumstances and hopefully will have some bedrock of confidence already built up in the pronouncements from the authority . 
it is fundamentally essential therefore that the authority is not anonymous . 
it must be visible . 
I will do everything I can to promote that high profile role for the authority . 
Mrs Lynne asks whether the authority will have sufficient teeth . 
I suspect that the question is focused on the issue of where the competence of the authority begins and ends and where the competence and authority of food safety agencies in Member States begin and end . 
there would have to be an interaction at scientific level . 
quite clearly it is undesirable to have situations develop whereby scientists working for , or advising , the food safety authority at Community level may be in disagreement with some scientific opinion at Member State level . 
that is an undesirable situation , we do not want that situation in the future . 
there are a number of things that undermine consumer confidence - lack of information is one . 
but information which includes a fundamental disagreement between scientists on core issues relating to food safety is also an issue of serious concern . 
we must attempt to avoid that and establish the structures so as to ensure that there is a proper dissemination of information between scientists , that there is full consultation and discussion and that the authority at Community level has the opportunity and is mandated to seek the advice and opinion of independent scientists in all Member States and indeed maybe even beyond , where experts are to be found elsewhere . 
over time , as I said a moment ago , not only will the profile of the authority be raised but its expertise , its moral authority will be increased and enhanced over a period of time so that its views are accepted and not challenged . 
this situation can be achieved over a period of time . 
you cannot legislate for consumer confidence . 
it is something that is earned over a period of time . 
however , the Commission will have the possibility of seeing that the opinions of the Authority on scientific matters are enforced by way of passing legislation which is the function of the Commission , Parliament and Council . 
I realise that this is a somewhat time @-@ consuming exercise but , nonetheless , the establishment of legislation arising out of the opinions of the Authority is - I believe - the way forward . 
any failure to comply with legislation is a matter that can be dealt with in the courts in the normal way . 
one of the issues that we may have to address over time is the question of the speed of response in such circumstance . 
I hope to see if something can be put in place to get us a faster response from the court process . 
in relation to grants and subsidies : yes , consideration has been given to that issue . 
it will require the advice of legal services and that will be sought , particularly bearing in mind that it may provide a speedy response to a failure to comply with Community law pending a court ruling . 
in relation to Mrs Lynne 's question on interim payments : that is a matter that might very well be addressed by Parliament as it relates to budget issues . 
Mrs Myller then asked me about the location of the Authority . 
no decision has been taken in relation to that other than to say that it is more likely that the Authority will be located centrally rather than on the periphery . 
I recognise that the FEO is located in Dublin and , although I come from that part of the world myself , I have to accept that it is not the centre of Europe ! 
but the FVO is in quite a different situation from the Food Safety Authority . 
the FVO is made up of independent scientists and vets and so on who travel from some location where there is an airport - quite clearly we have an airport in Dublin . 
the Food Safety Authority 's situation is quite different . 
it has to be close to the Commission because of the need for interaction between the scientists involved in the Food Safety Authority and those of us who are involved in the initiation of legislation . 
an important part of the communication between the two institutions will obviously be to ensure that those of us who are involved in the drafting of legislation understand clearly and perfectly what it is the scientists mean , what problems they have identified , what legislation is necessary to deal with the issues they raise . 
equally , the scientists will wish to have some input into the legal process or the policy @-@ making process or the law @-@ drafting process , to ensure that the legislation meets the ills that they have identified . 
it seems to me desirable for an authority of this type to be centrally located . 
scientists will be employed in @-@ house but it will also be necessary to liaise with scientists on a consultative basis and , in those circumstances , as scientists will have to travel , it is probably better that they move to a central location , once again where the parliamentary structures and the Commission and Council are based . 
that is my judgement at the moment . 
it may be a matter for discussion here and elsewhere and I will listen to any suggestions that are made but my preliminary conclusion is that this Authority should be located centrally rather than on the periphery . 
colleagues , I am in a very difficult position because I cannot change the agenda . 
I would suggest to you to take this matter up with your political groups and raise it in the Conference of Presidents . 
if you feel that these sessions after a Commission statement are important , I would suggest that we require more time than the half @-@ hour that is allocated to them . 
on this occasion we have had six minutes of questions from the floor of the House and we have had 29 minutes of response by the Commissioner , and his statement . 
as you can see , half @-@ an @-@ hour is not really anything like enough time for such a session . 
I hope you might discuss this in your political groups so that we can have a better structured session with the Commission on such future occasions . 
that concludes the debate . 
question Time ( Commission ) 
the next item is Question Time ( B5 @-@ 0003 / 2000 ) . 
we will examine questions to the Commission . 
we will dedicate approximately one hour and fifteen minutes to Question Time . 
we will cut back our time a little because the interpreters are working today in continuous session . 
Mr Purvis has the floor for a procedural motion . 
I object to the fact that we are cutting back the time for Question Time ; it is one of the few occasions when backbenchers have a chance to get their time on the floor and I do ask you to extend it to one and a half hours as is on the agenda . 
that is the agenda and I think that we should stick to the agenda . 
the fact is that the agenda said that we would begin at 5.30 p.m. , and you can see the clock . 
I hope that we do not go on into the evening session in any event . 
first Part 
question No 28 by ( H @-@ 0781 / 99 ) : 
Turkey 's nuclear plans ? which ignore the risks to the population and ecosystems of Turkey and the surrounding region ? prompt the suspicion that there are underlying plans previously determined by Turkey 's political and military leaders to acquire nuclear technology enabling them to build nuclear weapons , as evidenced by their attempts to buy reactors of Canadian origin of the type acquired by India and Pakistan . 
what steps will the Commission take to prevent nuclear accidents and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in a country that wishes to join the EU but spends enormous amounts on nuclear programmes while receiving financial aid from the EU budget ? 
Mr Verheugen has the floor on behalf of the Commission . 
the Commission is following with interest the planned construction of a nuclear power plant in Akkuyu , Turkey and recognises the importance of ensuring that the construction of the new plant follows the highest internationally accepted nuclear safety standards . 
according to our information , the decision on the selection of a bidder has not been taken yet . 
the Commission acknowledges the fact that Turkey has signed and ratified the convention on nuclear safety and recognises that the responsibility for granting licences and regulating the siting , construction , commissioning , operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Turkey rests entirely with the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority . 
the Commission does not have a mandate to impose any limits on decisions taken by any country in terms of energy production , including the nuclear option . 
as Commissioner Wallström indicated during the hearings in the European Parliament in September 1999 , the Commission will bring up the issue of nuclear safety and radiation protection in any relevant meeting with the Turkish Government in the future and I am happy to inform you that I will have a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister in a couple of days and will certainly raise the issue . 
in particular , the Commission is aware of the public concerns about the recorded seismic activity in the area of the Ecemis fault line located in the vicinity of the proposed plant site . 
according to information received from the International Atomic Agency , the design of the plant takes into account the possibility of earthquakes stronger than any ever recorded in the area and particularly more than ten times stronger than the one registered in June 1998 in Adana . 
large design margins are being provided in order to ensure safe operation of the plant according to the environmental conditions of the site . 
the Commission is also aware of concern about the possible intention of using the plant to produce weapons @-@ grade material . 
it acknowledges the fact that Turkey has signed and ratified the Treaty on the Non @-@ proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and has subsequently concluded a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency . 
thank you for your reply . 
I should like to make the following points : Turkey is now a candidate country . 
this plan is designed to increase its energy potential by 2 % . 
at the same time , it also wishes to acquire Cadou type reactors from Canada , which we now know have already been used for nuclear weapons in Pakistan and India . 
in this sense , there is therefore a serious risk that some idiot will decide that the new geopolitical balance of power in the Caucasus calls for a nearby country with weapons grade nuclear technology . 
so much for the political aspect . 
now to the technical aspect . 
the safety factor in this type of project , and I am speaking as an engineer , has nothing to do with increasing safety levels in relation to the risk of collapse by a factor of ten or twenty . 
in cases such as this , where there is uncertainty , simulators are used . 
however , we cannot used simulators in cases relating to nuclear energy . 
in this sense , all high seismic risk areas must be excluded a priori for nuclear installations such as this . 
therefore , and given that the relationship between the European Union and the Commission and Turkey has now changed , it would be a good idea if Turkey discussed certain matters relating both to the safety of the area in general and the peaceful development of Turkey within the European Union . 
a couple of weeks ago we had a debate in Parliament on the nuclear safety issue with special regard to the candidate countries . 
I have explained the position of the Commission . 
you have to accept the fact that there is no acquis communautaire on nuclear safety . 
so what we did was use political means to convince some candidate countries that we have to have decommissioning plans for some reactors that are considered not to be upgradable . 
in the case of Turkey it is different . 
the plant is not yet there . 
I have already said that Turkey is part of the NPT and of the Convention on Nuclear Safety . 
if we see in the development of that nuclear power plant that there are concerns about safety we will discuss it with Turkey . 
if the conclusion is that Turkey is planning to build a nuclear power plant that does not meet normal European safety standards is concerned then we would do the same as we did with Lithuania , Slovakia and Bulgaria . 
Mr President , the Commissioner said that Turkey has signed the non @-@ proliferation treaty , it has signed the nuclear safety treaties : why should there be any doubt at all but that Turkey 's nuclear plant should not be just as safe as any in the Community , and would the Commissioner be prepared to take a rather more robust position with Mr Souladakis on this matter ? 
I think it is the right of a Member of Parliament to raise his own concerns and fears . 
I do not have these concerns . 
I believe that Turkey completely recognises the standards and the criteria of the convention on nuclear safety and the non @-@ proliferation treaty , but there is no doubt that there are concerns in the public in Europe and I think it is quite right to discuss them here in Parliament . 
question No 29 by ( H @-@ 0786 / 99 ) : 
subject : depleted uranium weapons Has the Commission conducted any studies of the potential effects upon EU states of transboundary pollution arising from the use of depleted uranium weapons in the Kosovan conflict ? 
if not , why not ? 
Mrs Wallström has the floor on behalf of the Commission . 
thank you , Mr Bowe , for your question . 
the European Commission has monitored the environmental effects of the conflict from the beginning of the NATO action . 
as early as last June the Commission financed a first study . 
it was carried out by the regional environment centre for central and eastern Europe and concluded that there had been no large @-@ scale ecological catastrophe . 
none of the subsequent evidence or analysis has overturned that original assessment . 
the Commission has also been closely associated with the production of the recent report published by the United Nations environment programme - Balkan Task Force . 
this is the most detailed and comprehensive report to date on the environmental effects of the Kosovo conflict and I recommend it to those who have not yet studied it . 
the use of depleted uranium weapons was one of the many issues considered and this report is now widely available also on the Net . 
the Balkan Task Force was hampered by the fact that little or no information was available on the actual use of these weapons during the conflict . 
no indications of contamination were found in Kosovo during the BTF fact @-@ finding mission . 
however , this does not exclude the possibility that areas in Kosovo are contaminated by depleted uranium . 
from a desk assessment coupled with a fact @-@ finding mission the report concludes that the risks , if any , are limited to an area around the target . 
future actions will take place within the stability pact for south @-@ eastern Europe . 
a special regional environmental reconstruction plan is also being developed . it will form the framework for emergency assistance for combating war damage if such action should be needed . 
first of all , Mr President , can I thank the Commissioner for that very useful response . 
clearly the Commission has given some consideration to this problem and I am pleased that these reports which have been produced so far have looked carefully at the issue . 
but I would like to point out that the concern with depleted uranium weapons is about the way in which they are used . 
this uranium becomes air @-@ borne , is inhaled and could now be effectively carried by members of the population in Kosovo with rather more long @-@ term effects than it has been possible to establish so far . 
this seems to be the pattern of events that has emerged after the use of depleted uranium weapons in the Gulf war . 
I would therefore ask the Commission if it would wish to consider continuation of monitoring and for what length of time they might consider monitoring in future to see the long @-@ term effects , not just of depleted uranium weapons but of some of the other effects on the environment that we do know have occurred at least in a localised way within Kosovo ? 
how long will you continue to monitor the effects of these weapons ? 
thank you , Mr Bowe , for that question . 
we have to state again that there is still no confirmation that depleted uranium was used in the conflict and no depleted uranium has been detected in the clean @-@ up of Kosovo . 
but those symptoms and those problems that you mentioned could be there and that could be the effect of the use of depleted uranium . 
that is also mentioned in the report . 
no transboundary effects have been detected and most of the weapons will have been used on the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia . 
the problem is that the current political isolation of the country means that access to this area is restricted . 
a big responsibility rests with the United Nations because they are addressed with this report , so they have to take responsibility . 
but through this regional and environmental reconstruction plan we can continue the monitoring and the assistance we can give and that is , for the time being , the kind of frame we can use for the work of the European Union . 
it is important to follow up and it gives the Member States , as well as the United Nations and the Commission , something to think about when it is a matter concerning military secrets and their effects on the environment . 
it also has a long @-@ term effect on thinking when it comes to the use of these sorts of weapons . 
Mr President , Commissioner , in a few months ' time , hundreds of thousands of holidaymakers will again head for the Adriatic Coast to spend their summer holiday . 
we know from media reports that bombs and weapons were dumped just off the coast . 
are you able to confirm that holidaymakers will be able to swim safely in the Adriatic this summer , and are there any measures in the pipeline for ascertaining what the dangers might be in this respect ? 
I wish I could give guarantees for many things but unfortunately I am not able to . 
we make our judgements from reports like this and the missions we send to check on things like this . 
that is what we rely on when we advise people on what to do . 
what we have seen is that war affects the environment in the long term and is dangerous . 
in the environmental field we have just passed a directive on marine pollution . that also includes bullets and weapons and so on and it is an early warning system . 
unfortunately we are not able to give guarantees and we can only continue to monitor and try to do the clean @-@ up exercise . 
I wanted to ask the Commissioner whether it is true that soldiers of the NATO armed forces now stationed in that region undergo special controls against nuclear radiation and that the same measures are not applied to civilians living in the area ? 
I cannot answer that question . 
when it comes to medical checks and so on , I do not have all the information needed to give a proper answer . 
what we know from the environmental side is what I have already mentioned , that there is now an environmental reconstruction plan , but when it comes to medical check @-@ ups I do not have the information about that . 
of course I can go back and see whether we can find the necessary information . 
question No 30 by ( H @-@ 0793 / 99 ) : 
subject : appointment of a European Union envoy for Tibet In 1998 the Tibetan Government in exile received over 4000 Tibetans who escaped over the Himalayan mountains seeking freedom and refuge at risk of life and limb . 
many of the refugees had been severely frost @-@ bitten and many had died along the way . 
the Tibet Intergroup is very concerned about the worsening situation in Tibet and it is clear that the current policy of the European Union has proved inadequate to address the grave human rights abuses faced by Tibetans daily in Tibet . 
when will the Commission appoint a Special Envoy for Tibet ? 
Mr Patten has the floor on behalf of the Commission . 
the concerns expressed by the European Parliament about Tibet are widely shared . 
I have long believed in the need to set out our views on human rights issues , including Tibet , firmly and candidly to the Chinese authorities . 
the European Union did that at the European Union ­ China Summit in Peking last month where we pressed the Chinese on a number of human rights issues , including Tibet . 
we again urged the Chinese to begin a dialogue with the Dalai Lama . 
I urge the Chinese again to do so . 
we will continue to raise Tibet with the Chinese authorities . 
we are also doing a number of other things : in the European Union @-@ China human rights dialogue , we have focused on a number of practical steps , including sending experts on assignment to Tibet , planning development assistance programmes and activities focusing on health , education and training for Tibetans . 
the appointment of an EU special envoy for Tibet would be primarily a matter for the Council to decide and Parliament might care to take the issue up directly with them . 
but for my part , I am not sure that it would add much practical value to our efforts . 
it would be unlikely to have much impact on the Chinese authorities and we already have effective channels of communication with the Tibetan community in exile . 
I am also keen to guard against an exponential growth in the number of special envoys , however worthy the cause . 
Mr President , Mr Patten , of course , you are very well @-@ qualified to comment on account of the time you spent in China , and you are well aware of how hard the Tibetans are trying to initiate a debate , something which has always been blocked hitherto . 
however , if your response was to be that we should turn to " Mr CFSP " , that is , to Mr Solana , then I fear that this would constitute a one @-@ sided approach to an external policy matter . 
your approach , which I am very much in favour of , since it is a coherent one , takes its inspiration from the issue of human rights ; I wholeheartedly agree that we must embrace the cause of human rights . 
imprisonment , torture , the mutilation of young women and so on and so forth , are definitely issues that we could discuss ad infinitum . 
if we cut down here and say that the Council now shares responsibility for this , then I fear that these human rights issues will not be given the attention they deserve . 
the possibility of stressing the importance of business and trade in the first place , but also making very sure that we include human rights in the equation , would be a step we should take in tandem with the European Commission , rather than saying that it is a matter for the Council . 
let me make clear to the honourable Member what the position is . 
I stated nothing but the truth when I said that the appointment of special envoys was a matter for the Council . 
as it happens , we deal with the budgetary consequences , the Council makes the appointment . 
some may think that the budgetary point should be looked at in due course . 
putting that on one side , because that is the situation , it does not mean that we do not have a view and a competence in human rights issues . 
I am very much hoping in the next few months that the Commission will be able to produce a communication on human rights pointing out , among other things , that there is no disjunction whatsoever between a regard for human rights in China or other places in the world and the trading and commercial interests and other interests of the European Union . 
I have long believed that we should all recognise that countries where it is best to do business are countries that treat their own citizens most decently - everywhere in the world . 
I repeat that we have made our position known to the Chinese on Tibet . 
during the few months that I have been a Commissioner that has happened twice , first of all in New York at our meeting with Minister Tang and most recently at the meeting in Peking and we will continue to make that concern manifest . 
if I can make a literary commendation to the honourable Member , who I recognise is interested in these subjects , I recommend to him a book published just before Christmas written by Isabel Hilton , the distinguished journalist , on the problems of Tibet . 
Mr President , I would like to start my additional question with the Tibetan greeting , which betokens peace and happiness . 
we are not just talking about human rights and the environment where Tibet is concerned , rather it is about a unique cultural heritage that is also able to communicate important values such as peace , serenity , compassion - as the Dalai Lama would say - to us Europeans . 
the question before us now is what can the Commission do to provide more practical support for his Holiness , the Dalai Lama ' s , proposal for a peaceful solution to the Tibet affair ? 
I would point out that doing nothing will be the death of Tibetan culture and will mean the end of the Tibetan people . 
I have much sympathy with what the honourable Member has said about cultural heritage and about the Buddhist tradition . 
like the honourable Member I have read the autobiography of the Dalai Lama . 
it is an extremely moving account , not just of his responsibilities in and towards Tibet but also of his spiritual views as well . 
the Commission , like others , has urged dialogue . 
the Dalai Lama has made it clear that peaceful dialogue is what he wishes . 
I wish that the Chinese authorities had responded consistently and positively to that overture from the Dalai Lama . 
at or around the time of President Clinton 's visit to China , the President of the People 's Republic of China gave the impression that dialogue was on the agenda . 
it would be very beneficial , not just for Tibet and for all those who believe in peace and stability in Asia , but it would also be greatly to the credit of the Government of the People 's Republic of China if they were to respond to those attempts to begin a dialogue . 
question No 31 by ( H @-@ 0795 / 99 ) : 
subject : Commission 's rejection of legislation on proper administration in the EU According to newspaper reports , the Commission has rejected the proposal by EU Ombudsman Jacob Söderman for a citizens ? right to proper administration in the EU . 
although the Commission has itself approved the idea of legislation on proper administration , it has not now accepted a detailed proposal that has been made , but has decided to issue a whole set of additional guidelines on improving service . 
are these reports accurate ? 
what is the reason for the Commission ? s acting in this way , and how can it explain the resultant discrepancy between its words and its actions on the reform of EU administration ? 
does the Commission consider that what has happened is compatible with the five @-@ point programme agreed between Parliament and the Commission in September , and is it prepared to submit a detailed proposal for legislation on proper administration in a form which allows Parliament to express an opinion on it ? 
Mr Patten has the floor on behalf of the Commission . 
the newspaper reports that the honourable Member made reference to seem to me to be misleading and inaccurate . 
in November 1999 the Commission approved at first reading a code of good administrative behaviour to be incorporated into its Rules of Procedure . 
at the moment the Commission is consulting its staff representatives on the document , a process which will be finalised in the forthcoming weeks . 
the Commission will then adopt the code at second reading . 
it should be noted that the new Commission gave an immediate follow @-@ up to the European Ombudsman decision of 28 July 1999 in his own @-@ initiative inquiry related to the code . 
the Commission would like to stress in particular that , in the drafting of the code , it has taken on board all the draft recommendations of the European Ombudsman . 
the code will be a document exclusively dealing with the relations of the Commission 's administration with the public . 
it will be adopted through a legally @-@ binding Commission decision to be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities . 
the document has been drawn up taking full account of the provisions contained in the draft prepared by the European Ombudsman 's office . 
according to the related provisions in the Treaties the responsible legislator for establishing its Rules of Procedure is the Commission itself . 
however , it goes without saying that the Commission adheres to the principle of regular political dialogue with the European Parliament on all aspects of administrative reform . 
Mr President , I would like to thank the Commissioner . however , I would still like to ask when this code will finally come into force , bearing in mind that it has been on the agenda since 1997 . 
the newspaper reports were misleading . 
I do not think there is any difference between us and the Ombudsman . 
there is a question about the legislative base on which we have taken the best advice and I think we are soundly placed on that . 
I want to repeat that honourable Members , like the honourable Member who asked the question , who take a particular interest in this issue , will want to have a dialogue about it . 
it is extremely important and I recognise the concern of the honourable Member . 
I want to thank the Commission for what I perceive as a very positive answer . 
for safety ' s sake , I should like to have confirmation that it really is the case that , where the Commission and good administration are concerned , there is no part of Jacob Söderman ' s proposal which the Commission thinks is unacceptable . 
is it true that the contents of all parts of the proposal will be approved ? 
let me read what it says in my brief - and as it is in my brief it must be true ! 
" I would like to stress again that the Commission has accepted all the Ombudsman 's recommendations contained in his draft recommendations of July 1999 " . 
both documents , that is the Commission 's document and the Ombudsman 's draft , cover largely the same ground . 
the only substantial question that has arisen is the legislative basis . 
I can go into that in detail if the honourable Member would like but there is no doubt that we are on all fours with the Ombudsman on this important issue . 
we will be happy to incorporate Mr Patten ' s notes into the bibliography , as another bedside book for the Members to bear in mind . 
as the author is not present , Question No 32 lapses . 
I apologise to Mr Vitorino for this parliamentary discourtesy . I am sorry . 
according to the Rules of Procedure , you are not required to reply . 
I wish you a good evening . 
second Part 
questions to Mr Nielson , who is replaced by Mr Patten 
questions 33 and 34 of Questions to the Commission were intended for Mr Nielson . 
Mr Nielson cannot be present today since he is in South Africa . 
I must tell you that the Vice @-@ President of the Commission , Mrs Loyola de Palacio , has sent me a kind letter giving me all sorts of explanations and informing me that Mr Patten will reply to the questions . 
question No 33 by ( H @-@ 0829 / 99 ) : 
subject : ' mainstreaming ' in EU aid policy In 1995 the Council drew up guidelines for integrating the equal opportunities dimension ( ' mainstreaming ' ) into the full range of EU aid policy . 
the guidelines call for all staff working in the development sector to receive continuous training in ' gender mainstreaming ' but in recent years only around 50 people have been trained and there is still no compulsory training in the subject within the Directorate @-@ General for Development . 
' mainstreaming ' means taking account of equality between women and men as an integral part of all forms of development policy , strategy and measures . 
to achieve that , the Council 's guidelines must be implemented in their entirety . 
current staff must receive compulsory training in equal opportunities and 1 @-@ 2 days ' training in such issues should form an essential part of the Directorate @-@ General for Development 's introductory courses for new staff . 
is the Commission prepared to take such measures ? 
can I first of all emphasise how sorry my colleague , Mr Nielson , was that he could not be here but the honourable Members who are concerned about these development questions will know how important his mission is , trying to ensure that our agreement with South Africa survives . 
the Commission is prepared to look at the possibility of making an introduction to gender and development , part of the so @-@ called induction courses for new staff , something that has been done already but not , I admit , on a regular basis . 
the training of staff moving to the delegations in the different regions is another entry point . 
the training then would be automatically performed without being compulsory . 
we also aim to include training in these issues in the basic training that our officials receive in project cycle management . 
as far as possible , we want to see this sort of training automatically built into programmes at the outset , instead of having to be tackled separately and later . 
my own view as a former development minister is that these issues should be mainstreamed themselves and tackled at the heart of training and not turned into a sort of optional add @-@ on . 
the quest for equality should permeate the work of the Directorate @-@ General for Development at all levels . 
it is not to be brought in as a " sort of optional add @-@ on " . 
this must naturally lead to a reformulation of development goals and strategies , together with a transformation of institutions and processes so that both women ' s and men ' s priorities and needs are better reflected . 
in addition , measures must be taken to combat differences on the grounds of gender . 
equality must permeate not only projects and programmes but also all overarching goals , action plans and strategies . 
it would appear that we are in agreement about this . 
however , responsibility for ensuring that due attention is given to equality lies with departmental and unit managers . 
if the latter do not have the required professional competence , then nothing will happen and gender mainstreaming will no longer be a priority . 
extremely few members of the Directorate @-@ General for Development , that is to say unit managers and more senior managers , have taken part in the gender courses that have been organised . 
only one manager has participated in gender training , and for half a day . 
that is naturally unacceptable . 
what is the Commission prepared to do to ensure that unit managers and more senior managers go through the necessary gender training ? 
gender has in fact been included in the compulsory introductory course for new employees , but then with only one to two hours devoted to it on each course . 
this limited training element has , however , been removed from all introductory courses which have taken place in recent times . 
as I point out in my question , one to two days , and not one to two hours , need to be devoted to the subject . 
my question is this : is the Commission really prepared to comply with the adopted guidelines for gender mainstreaming at the Directorate @-@ General for Development ? 
well I certainly take gender mainstreaming seriously and so does my colleague Commissioner Nielson . 
I must not go on about books , but I have just been reading the book by David Landis Barnhill on what makes some countries prosperous and some countries less prosperous and it is interesting to see there the importance that he attaches to gender issues , in the economic prosperity and political stability of societies , going back millennia . 
secondly , in my view , while the training that we are talking about should not be compulsory - after all there is no compulsory training on anything in the Commission - it should be essential . 
and , since it should be essential , I would hope that everybody would make certain that they had adequate gender training . 
that goes for everybody at whatever level of seniority . 
it is not something which more senior officials can deem appropriate for their juniors but think that they are too grown @-@ up or too senior to receive themselves . 
thirdly , one of the best approaches to this issue is to integrate gender as an important and cross @-@ cutting issue into the most popular courses for development officials and above all perhaps for the project cycle management course which is key to good management of projects on the ground . 
so I sympathise very much with what the honourable Member has said . 
I hope the approach that we are following both demonstrates practicality and the imperative of giving this the attention which it deserves . 
since 1991 , the Community has provided significant financial support to the New Independent States including the countries of central Asia . 
the major part of European Union aid has been provided under the TACIS programme . 
in 1998 and 1999 Kyrgyzstan , Kazakhstan , Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan received technical assistance of EUR 75 million . 
this assistance has delivered benefits in all sectors , in particular agriculture , infrastructure development , the private economy and the strengthening of institutions . 
security considerations have prevented Tajikistan from benefiting fully from TACIS but a rehabilitation programme of EUR 7.2 million has been in place in 1998 and 1999 . 
in addition to national programmes , the European Union has supported important regional actions in the energy , transport and environmental sectors . 
food security programmes in central Asia began in 1996 , following two previous years when the European Union provided food aid in kind . 
these programmes have benefited Kyrgyzstan and to a more limited extent , Tajikistan . 
funding for NGO programmes in Tajikistan amounted to EUR 7.42 million in 1998 and 1999 . 
over the same period , Kyrgyzstan received EUR 17 million . 
since 1993 the Commission 's European Community Humanitarian Office , ECHO , has been active in supporting the most vulnerable groups and sectors in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan . 
in 1998 and 1999 EUR 3.8 million was granted to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan received over EUR 35 million , mainly for food , medical supplies , water and sanitation . 
frequent monitoring and situation assessments have shown that European Union assistance is contributing to the stability of these countries and therefore the ongoing peace process . 
Mr President , Commissioner , there is a risk of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea becoming the Balkans of the 21st Century . 
that is why it is imperative to stabilise the two major states of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in particular . 
that is why I would like to ask you what you are actually able to do within your own sphere of competence , how the negotiations with regard to the partnership agreement with these two countries are going , that is , with regard to political relations that is . 
of course , that falls within your remit ; my next question falls within Mr Nielson ' s remit in that it concerns environmental cooperation , in particular matters pertaining to water and the problems surrounding the cotton monocultures , which are the cause of great aridity . 
we were able , at the Istanbul Summit a couple of weeks ago , to meet and have discussions with some of the Central Asian republics . 
I am very anxious that we should strengthen our relationship with them . 
I can send the honourable Member , if he would like , a detailed breakdown of exactly where we stand on the negotiation of partnership and cooperation agreements with each of the Central Asian republics . 
obviously everyone will hope that his prediction of what may happen in the future is on the gloomy side . 
but I have no doubt at all that he is right to point to the strategic importance of Central Asia . 
I have heard the honourable Member talk in the past about the Caucasus as well . 
he is absolutely right to say that a Union which talks about conflict prevention should be looking at what it can do in these particular areas to ensure that there is not the sort of conflict in the future which has caused so much devastation in the Balkans and which has cost us a great deal more than we might have had to spend otherwise , had we taken more pre @-@ emptive measures if those had been possible . 
so the honourable Member 's remarks about the strategic importance of these regions are extremely well made . 
we are contributing to programmes in the region which have some ecological impact . 
our food programmes are directly related to structural reforms in agriculture as well as poverty alleviation . 
those programmes themselves are intended to ensure that agriculture has a more soundly based position in those societies and does not consist simply of raping the land . 
there is an ecological aspect which we should continue to give priority to . 
we also take good note of the fact that the Member who has asked the question has applauded the Commissioner ' s answer . 
this is not the usual state of affairs . 
and furthermore the Commissioner has not quoted from his bibliography this time . 
thank you very much , Mr Patten , for your interventions today . 
question No 35 by ( H @-@ 0778 / 99 ) : 
subject : Greek action plan for employment According to the findings of the evaluation of Action Plans for Employment , Greece and Italy are the main targets for criticism from the Commission for not properly carrying out employment support measures and policies . 
the report states that in Greece and Italy targets for improving ? employability ? have not yet been reached and it is doubtful whether the policies to be implemented will enable the guidelines on preventing and dealing with long @-@ term unemployment to be complied with . 
the report also comments that in Greece there are no plans for medium to long @-@ term measures aimed at reducing employment tax and insurance charges , or for the satisfactory use of European Social Fund resources to support employment policies , and , in addition , that there are no exact employment figures . 
could the Commission say whether the Greek Government has made any specific commitments on how to tackle the problems of youth and long @-@ term unemployment , and what these commitments are ? 
has the government legislated for and put into place a suitable system for pinpointing , recording and monitoring fluctuations in unemployment , or are most of the measures perhaps still limited to counting those out of work ? 
as far as Mr Papayannakis ' question is concerned , in the 1999 Action Plan for Employment , the Commission proposed certain recommendations for Greece with a view to improving the efficiency of the Action Plan for Employment . 
the most important recommendations related to the need to improve efforts to reform public sector services , where problems exist , improve the statistical monitoring system and apply preventive policies in accordance with guidelines 1 and 2 of the Action Plan for Employment . 
the Greek Government introduced two specific programmes in 1999 as part of its employment policy : " yes to Work " and " Back to Work " . 
we do not yet have the final results of these programmes and cannot yet tell if the quantitative objectives were achieved . 
in the new programme submitted for the period from 2000 to 2006 , which is being financed from the Social Fund , both the resources and the policies should be used , with the Commission ' s support , to implement the objectives which I referred to earlier . 
the Commission will keep a close watch on the Greek Government in order to ensure that it honours the commitments which it has made . 
thank you , Commissioner for your reply . 
you tell me that you , as the Commission , have made recommendations . 
I understand and welcome that and I hope that the recommendations will be adhered to . 
however , my question for a very long time has been this : what happened with previous policies ? 
did anyone find work ? how many people found work ? 
if you cannot tell us for this year , then last year and the year before . 
what has been done about training ? 
is the purpose of the famous training centres to provide jobs for instructors or trainees ? 
do we have any figures ? 
in other words , do we have ways of checking what is happening with this government policy in Greece ? 
Mr Papayannakis , the only answer I can give you is that the Greek Government does indeed need to step up efforts to introduce computerised statistical records and to set up structures so that the programmes implemented have the quantitative results which you mentioned , and so that monitoring can be carried out and used as a basis for formulating policies . 
Greece has seen an increase in the employment rate and , as far as I can see , an increase in productivity . 
the action which the Commission can take relates to the specific guidelines . 
as you know , there are 22 guidelines on which each country is evaluated . 
they concern access to training , the ratio of men to women with access to training , and special action for the long @-@ term unemployed . 
the Commission will endeavour , for all these specific guidelines , to quantify the data and to obtain specific information based on the implementation of the new Community framework for 2000 to 2006 . 
question No 36 by ( H @-@ 0782 / 99 ) : 
subject : Danish early retirement pension scheme Will the Commission state whether the Danish early retirement pension scheme has been approved in its entirety and whether there are disagreements between Denmark and the Commission in other areas of social policy ? 
the Danish pension scheme , the Efterløn , only allows people resident in Denmark and people who have completed the required period of employment in Denmark to retire . 
some workers have complained to the European Commission because they do not have the right to retire . 
the Danish authorities do not consider that they are obliged under Community law to pay this compensation to workers taking early retirement who do not meet the conditions required under Danish law . 
it should be noted that the current regulation on social security systems does not at present refer to the question of early retirement and the Commission has proposed certain amendments to the regulation which are , however , still pending before the Council . 
there is , as yet , no European Court case law on Efterløn , but it could validly be argued that the residence requirement is incompatible with general clauses now in force banning discrimination on the grounds of nationality . 
the Commission services set up a procedure for joint meetings and discussions with the Danish Government with a view to finding a common language and a common approach . 
the last meeting on the subject was held in November 1999 and we are waiting for the Commission services ' final proposals on whether or not infringement proceedings will be instituted against Denmark . 
I noticed that the Commissioner did not give a direct answer to the question of whether the Danish early retirement pension scheme as a whole has been approved by the Commission , but it was indirectly apparent that the answer was that it has not been . 
I should like to ask the Commissioner expressly to confirm that the scheme has not been approved by the Commission . 
I should like to ask the Commissioner if she can provide any approximate deadlines in connection with this matter , for it is a problem which needs clarification in the context of the Danish socio @-@ political debate . 
so I should be grateful if the Commissioner could enlarge upon this question . 
honourable Member , I should just like to stress that both Denmark and numerous other Member States are having problems interpreting the directives and transposing them into national law . 
this is one such case and discussions are under way between the Danish Government and the Commission in order to find the best possible solution to the matter , to the benefit of the workers who meet the requirements and who , as things stand , have a right to this pension . 
I think that the answer is brief and clear . 
of course it is as you say . 
there will be no problem with Danish nationals within Denmark , that is not where the problem lies . 
the problem is with Danish nationals or other nationals residing outside Denmark . 
question No 37 by ( H @-@ 0791 / 99 ) : 
a proposal has been drafted for a directive to amend the directive on the working time of non @-@ consultant hospital doctors . 
the content of the proposal concerns the average 48 @-@ hour working week of doctors , with the possibility , following negotiation , of increasing it to 54 hours . 
the Council , Commission and Parliament are all agreed on the content but there is disagreement on the transitional period for implementing the directive . 
Parliament has proposed 4 years , the Commission 7 and the Council 13 . 
this proposal is still being discussed by the Council and Parliament on the basis of the codecision procedure . 
although there is this disagreement , I should stress that all three institutions agree on the content and that every effort is being made to find a common approach to this particularly important and sensitive question which concerns an exceptionally large number of working doctors throughout Europe . 
question No 38 by ( H @-@ 0805 / 99 ) : 
subject : measures to advance gender equality One of the working groups of Commissioners announced by President Prodi has as its objective the promotion of measures to advance gender equality ( gender mainstreaming ) . 
which Commissioners are members of this group ? 
how many meetings of the group have been held to date ? 
what concrete measures have been discussed ? 
this question covers several individual matters . 
it refers to the special Commission working group dealing with questions of equality . 
the Commissioners taking part are President Prodi , Vice @-@ President Kinnock , Mr Reding and myself . 
the meetings of the working group are open and the first meeting was held on 11 January 2000 . 
thank you very much , Commissioner , for your reply , although I regret the fact that this working group has taken so long to meet , since this matter is of the greatest importance . we trusted this Commission , from the outset , to begin work on all issues relating to greater equality for men and women . 
I hope that , in the future , things will change and meetings will become frequent , because there are many issues which require the attention of the Commission in order to speed up and conclude , as quickly as possible , those measures which will promote greater equality between men and women . 
Mrs Avilés @-@ Perea , that was an exhortation rather than a question . 
but if the Commissioner wishes to offer doctrine or good intentions ... 
allow me to say just one word . I agree that the working group should have met earlier but at least , once it did , important decisions were taken straight away . 
question No 39 by ( H @-@ 0807 / 99 ) : 
subject : Community EQUAL initiative On 13 October 1999 , the Commission adopted the Community 's EQUAL initiative , the aim of which is transnational cooperation to find and develop new means of combating discrimination and inequalities in the labour market with the focus on asylum @-@ seekers . 
under this umbrella , each Member State is to submit proposals in the form of a Community initiative programme for that particular country . 
what criteria will the Commission use to approve or reject the Member States ' programmes ? 
which Community body will control the funding of the steering group and the monitoring committee and verify that the programme is carried out exactly and correctly ? 
the European Social Fund contribution for the period 2000 @-@ 2006 will total 2 487 billion euro . as the EQUAL initiative is a joint funding venture with the Member States , what will Greece 's contribution amount to ? 
the EQUAL initiative is not restricted to certain groups of people . 
its purpose is to combat discrimination in the workplace . 
the decision on this initiative was taken in Berlin , where it was decided to take account of professional groups of asylum seekers and to include them in its action . 
this is an important aspect of this initiative . 
the Community initiative programme in each Member State must comply with the regulation . this is the same as the Social Fund regulation , i.e. EQUAL comes under the Social Fund regulation . 
it has been submitted to Parliament and we expect Parliament ' s opinion next month . 
I should like to stress that the EQUAL initiative satisfies national requirements and national plans defined in accordance with agreed European strategy . 
the Member States , i.e. the national governments , have primary responsibility for setting up the joint agencies , submitting proposals , selecting the proposals which the programmes will implement and carrying out primary control . 
within the European Commission , the Directorate @-@ General for Employment is responsible for implementation , while financial control is the responsibility of the Directorate @-@ General for Financial Control , the Anti @-@ Fraud Office and the European Court of Auditors . 
the last question concerns the amount granted . 
Greece has been granted ECU 98 million . the contribution commitment is 80 % , rising to an 85 % contribution from the initiative for the island regions , especially the remote Greek islands , and a contribution by Greece of 15 % . 
Mr President , I feel that the guidelines for the Community EQUAL initiative , especially the four actions described in it , will result both in complicated bureaucracy and , paradoxically , a non @-@ transparent structure . 
for example , one wonders how a development partnership will prove its cooperative spirit or its representative capacity , as required by action 2 in paragraph 33 of the guidelines . 
at the same time , the obligation to engage in transnational cooperation , the complicated demands of the plan and the implementation of a development partnership inevitably require large structures , as these are the only structures which can meet such demands . 
however , this contradicts the stated aim of the general objectives for decentralised action plans at the level of local authorities and rural areas . 
however , at the same time , participation by those actually discriminated against , such as asylum seekers , immigrants and so on , is rendered impossible or merely symbolic . 
finally , if you consider the overall amount , which is on the small side , - EUR 2.8 billion for 15 Member States - and how ambitious the objectives are , I am afraid that all we shall succeed in doing is to prove that unemployment is a bad thing . 
first let me say that it would be a great help to us , now that we have reached the stage where this is being processed by Parliament , if you could make specific proposals which we could take into account . 
secondly , I have to say that the aim of the EQUAL initiative is not to reduce unemployment , it cannot possibly deal with the issue of reducing unemployment , or to support an increase in employment . 
that is the job of the European Strategy for Employment and the Social Fund , which have huge sums of money and exceptionally large resources at their disposal , especially for countries like Greece . 
the EQUAL initiative has a specific mission . 
to encourage , to assist promotion , to create statistics , to create studies and agencies to support those sections of the population which suffer discrimination . 
so what we are looking for is cooperation between local groups , between local authorities and between countries in order to exchange experiences ; that is mainly what we are looking for , and for experience to be transferred from one country to another so that it can be emulated . 
this is the philosophy behind the initiative ; the budget is commensurate with it and our aim is for development agencies , non @-@ governmental organisations and local authorities to be involved as much as possible , so that it can get as close to the people as possible . 
question No 40 by ( H @-@ 0808 / 99 ) : 
subject : Article 13 TEU and Employment The draft Commission Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation gives exemption to religious organisations ( Art. 4.2 ) . 
could the Commission please tell Parliament the circumstances and the groups within Article 13 ( TEU ) likely to be effected by such an exemption ? 
a month ago , the Commission submitted a proposal on equal treatment in employment , as prescribed in the Treaty , in order to implement Article 13 . 
the ban on discrimination is the rule in the package of directives and programmes which we submitted . 
at the Commission ' s proposal and after approximately two years of consultation with social agencies , Member States and the European Parliament , a number of exceptions have been made . 
these exceptions relate to professions which must be exercised by persons with a genuine professional qualification . 
allow me to give you a specific example to illustrate this . 
in a religious school , it is logical for an exemption to be requested and accepted in order to ensure that the teacher is of the faith to which the religious school in question belongs . 
that is the sort of exemption we are talking about . 
clearly this is not a general exemption and the different approach which allow Member States to introduce special provisions are only justified in the case of this special professional qualification . 
this is a perverse interpretation of ending discrimination . 
for instance , religious schools could quite properly say to a Roman Catholic for example : we do not want to employ you because you are a gay man or because you are a lesbian . 
here we have from the Commission a reinforcement of a hierarchy of oppression . 
surely what we should be doing , and I hope you will agree , Commissioner , is engaging the person to do the job on the basis of their capability , and we should not enshrine such bigotry and prejudice , no matter how sincerely held . 
I must stress that this exemption is not a refusal of work for any reason , be it the reason which you mentioned , sexual orientation , ethnic discrimination or any other reason . 
it allows a choice to be made only where special qualifications are needed which relate directly to the activity in question . 
in other words , it is positive discrimination . 
in the example which you mentioned , it is only logical that the teacher in a Catholic school should be Catholic . 
that is the only form of exemption which is acceptable . 
question No 41 by ( H @-@ 0813 / 99 ) : 
does the Commission intend to put forward lowest common denominator policies which will properly reflect the admittedly extreme but nonetheless real @-@ life situation of these women , or will their plight once again be overlooked by the new employment policies ? 
obviously , the cohesion policy exists for less @-@ favoured regions and cooperation and joint action by the Structural Funds , the Social Fund and the Agricultural Fund exist for the cohesion policy . 
I should point out that the funds available for regions with problems account for one third of the total budget . 
the aim of these regional policies , which , of course , are implemented under the jointly agreed European guidelines in each Member State , i.e. each Member State is responsible for implementing this programme , is to increase opportunities for work for both men and women . 
I should point out that 70 % of funding for the period 2000 @-@ 2006 , i.e. EUR 195 billion , will go to the less @-@ favoured regions of Europe . 
secondly , the LEADER initiative currently being studied gives special priority to development strategies which aim to give special support to women in small enterprises in the agricultural sector and in rural tourism , with a view to increasing the involvement of women in agricultural regions . 
Commissioner , thank you for giving me a well @-@ intentioned answer , which has been rigorous and well @-@ argued . 
however , I can assure you that we do not , with the existing measures - which you have referred to - reach these severely less @-@ favoured regions . 
they are areas where there is much need and we have to put them on an equal footing with those areas where we work in cooperation , where almost none exists . 
therefore , my question is whether you could examine the possibility that some of the policies on microcredits , which have brought results in cooperation , could be applied to those women in severely less @-@ favoured regions , who have the odds stacked against them . 
I am very familiar with the programmes which you refer to . 
I can assure you that we are not reaching the areas where there is most need . 
with these forecasts of the structural policy - which I know very well - and the forecasts of LEADER and rural development , we will not promote , as we should , employment amongst women in the severely less @-@ favoured regions . 
I would therefore ask you to study the possibility of applying microcredit policies . 
the Commissioner accepts and takes good note of Mrs Izquierdo Rojo ' s intervention . 
question No 42 by ( H @-@ 0817 / 99 ) : 
subject : Commission 's plans for presentation of a new social action programme It is important that the Commission present as soon as possible a new social action programme , setting out a specific plan with a timetable for implementation for both the legislative work in the area of social security and initiatives for framework agreements in the context of the ' social dialogue ' . 
can the Commission say what its precise intentions are regarding the presentation of a new social action programme ? 
we estimate that the Commission ' s new social action programme for the next five years will be ready at the end of this summer . 
in order to complete the programme and be able to present it , we first need to complete our consultations with Parliament , the social partners and non @-@ governmental organisations . 
these discussions have already started , but we will need to take account of the results in Lisbon . 
the Lisbon European Council is trying to take a new approach to the question of social exclusion and the link between social exclusion and the information society , economic policy and reforms . 
these results will be most important in shaping the Commission ' s social programme . 
I have already told the European Parliament that a joint meeting will be held in April between Parliament and the Commission , after the Lisbon conference , so that all aspects can be discussed and the social programme for 2000 @-@ 2006 can finally be drafted . 
clearly , any future social action programme should take account of developments , for example within information technology , and , in time , become a modern social action programme . 
but can you also provide confirmation concerning the matter I raise in my question , namely that the programme will be designed in such a way that we shall obtain a concrete timetable for the various types of legislation in the social sphere which the Commission is planning , as well as for those initiatives which the Commission is planning with regard to dialogue between the two sides of industry ? 
we need to see which concrete alternatives the Commission will adopt during the coming period and which initiatives it will take for the purpose of reaching agreements . 
firstly , I agree with you entirely . account will be taken of the information society ; that was something which I too mentioned . 
social exclusion , the programme for women , the efforts we are making in the social protection area , everything needs to be looked at now in the light of the new reality of the information society . 
secondly , there will obviously be timetables for the initiatives within which systematic monitoring will also have to be implemented . 
where I cannot commit myself is on your reference to legislative work in the social security area which , as you know , is not included in the articles of the Treaty and there is no legal basis for social security questions in the Treaty . 
since the author is not present , Question No 43 lapses . 
question No 44 by ( H @-@ 0819 / 99 ) : 
subject : opportunities of the disabled to take advantage of freedom of movement within the EU Under Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty , it should be possible for all EU citizens to take advantage of freedom of movement within the Union . 
however , for people with various kinds of physical disability who are in need of special transport and personal assistance , freedom of movement is still highly restricted . 
what measures is the Commission taking to facilitate opportunities for the disabled in this area ? 
on 26 November 1999 , the European Commission approved a package of measures to combat discrimination . 
as far as the package in question and people with special needs are concerned , there is a directive which concentrates on combating discrimination , especially in the workplace . 
the European Commission believes that this initiative to combat discrimination will help to increase the level of employment of people with special needs and , in the end , to promote the freedom of movement of these persons . 
of course , it is particularly important for people with special needs to have access to means of transport , services and all types of installation if they are to exercise their right to freedom of movement . 
the European Commission has approved a proposal for a directive on special arrangements in buses , coaches and other vehicles , so that people with special needs with mobility problems and people using wheelchairs have access to them . 
in addition , you should know that , on 4 June 1998 , the Council approved the recommendation for a pan @-@ European type of parking permit to be introduced for people with special needs , the aim of which is to help them travel in all Member States with a common permit so that they can take advantage of all organised parking areas throughout Europe . 
I would thank the Commissioner for her answer . 
my question in the first place concerns the opportunities the disabled have to take advantage of freedom of movement in Europe . 
it is quite an expensive business if you are to travel from Gothenburg to somewhere else in Europe on holiday or on a study visit if you are in a wheelchair and also need to have a personal assistant or carer with you in order to manage . 
I am grateful for the fact that the Commission has adopted an action plan . 
it is of course a prerequisite , however , that there be financial resources and means of actually crossing the borders physically if you have a disability . 
it would be interesting to hear whether the Commission is also prepared to set aside financial resources for those who have disabilities , so that they too might venture further out into the world than merely to where their wheelchairs take them . 
I referred to the directive which the Commission has proposed on compulsory arrangements for means of public transport , so that people with special needs can use them . 
it has not yet been passed by the Council ; it is at the consultation stage . 
I think that a strategic decision of this sort can be taken at European level . 
I think it is exceptionally difficult for us to specialise in aid programmes for personal transport . 
that is dealt with either under special programmes in education , for young people , for women and for exchanges or must be a matter for national policy . 
question No 45 by ( H @-@ 0006 / 00 ) : 
subject : compliance with Directive 96 / 71 / EC concerning the posting of workers The posting of workers directive has still not been implemented in Denmark , even though the deadline has passed . 
the draft legislation before the Folketing does not contain any rules governing rights of employed persons under collective agreements . 
pursuant to Article 3 ( 8 ) of the Directive , terms and conditions of employment must be in keeping with the ' collective agreements which have been concluded by the most representative employers ' and labour organisations at national level and which are applied throughout national territory ' . 
however , such use of an agreement outside its specific scope cannot be imposed on the two sides of industry without a legal basis . 
there are therefore two possible solutions : either the Directive is inapplicable in Denmark , or Denmark is required by the Directive to introduce universally applicable agreements . 
can the Commission confirm that the Directive concerning the posting of workers is inapplicable in Denmark as far as ' collective agreements ... declared universally applicable ' ( cf . Article 3 ( 1 ) ) are concerned , given that such universally applicable agreements do not exist under Danish law ? 
if not , will it explain how the Directive is to be complied with in this area ? 
the European Union posting of workers directive stipulates that the compulsory rules concerning the terms and conditions of employment applicable in the host country must also apply to workers posted to that country . 
what it says it that one of two things may apply , i.e. either the legislation in the host country or the collective agreements which have been declared to be the rules universally applicable to a specific sector . 
because Denmark does not have a system for declaring collective agreements to be universally applicable rules , provision must be made in the implementing legislation so that , apart from current conditions of employment stipulated in legislation , the hours in universally applicable collective agreements , concluded by the most representative organisations , also apply to posted workers . 
in other words , to put it simply , Denmark has a choice : it can either introduce legislation or it can use the legislative process to choose a collective agreement and legally activate it . 
discussions are being held between the European Commission and Denmark , and Denmark is expected to notify the Commission of the transposition of this directive into its national legislation . 
the deadline by which it had to answer the Commission ' s questions expired on 6 December 1999 and we have not received a reply . 
we are waiting to see what the next move will be . 
thank you for a very clear answer , the gist of which - if the interpretation is correct - is that the posting of workers directive entails an obligation on the part of the Danish state to establish a system of universally applicable agreements . 
the disagreement and the correspondence to which you refer , Commissioner , concern , first and foremost , another directive , namely the working time directive , but now we can foresee another letter of formal notice and further Treaty infringement proceedings looming because the Danish Government does not intend , or has expressly stated that it does not wish , to implement legislation and establish universally applicable agreements . 
firstly , no attempt is being made to change the system in Denmark or in any other country . 
as I said earlier , there are always problems interpreting the directives of the European Commission both because they have a very general framework and because systems are very different from one country to another . 
as far as your question is concerned , this problem does not only apply to Denmark . 
it is not only Denmark which has matters pending . 
five countries have transposed this into national legislation and the rest are at the discussion stage . 
what now needs to be done , and this was the reason for the consultations and discussions between the Commission and the Danish Government , and with other governments , is to find the best way forward , so that something which is decided at European level by all the Member States , and which constitutes a general framework , can also include workers posted to Denmark from other countries . 
and this is the direction in which we expect the Danish and the other nine governments to move . 
thank you very much , Commissioner , for your dedication . 
you have fulfilled your objective for today , which is to answer all the questions . 
we congratulate you . 
since the time allocated to Questions to the Commission has elapsed , Questions 46 to 68 will be replied to in writing . 
that concludes Question Time . 
( the sitting was suspended at 7.50 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m. ) 
1997 discharge 
the Commissioner , Mrs Schreyer , is not here yet , but I hope , and expect , that she will arrive in the next few minutes . 
nevertheless , I recommend that we start , in the hope that the Commissioner will be able to follow the debate , and particularly the rapporteur ' s speech , from her office , if that is where she still is . 
Mr President , I am sure that Mrs Schreyer must have a very good reason for not being here because her absence would be inexcusable otherwise . 
I would like to start by thanking my colleagues for their cooperation on this report , it would not be what it is today without that spirit of cooperation . 
Mr President , early last year , the 1997 discharge was postponed because this Parliament could not possibly grant discharge to a resigning Commission which could not enter into any commitments for the future . 
in its resolution , this Parliament stated that discharge could not be granted until we had received serious , far @-@ reaching proposals for reform from the new European Commission . 
this report , therefore , appears at a crucial time , on the eve of Mr Kinnock ' s reforms . 
it is an excellent opportunity for this Parliament to introduce far @-@ reaching reforms to these plans . 
in the period leading up to this , it already appeared , on the basis of the initial drafts , that the Commission had made very important pledges . 
we asked for a whistle @-@ blower ' s regulation , and this is now in place . 
Parliament wanted financial inspection and audit functions to be separated . 
this has now been done . 
Parliament requires a code of conduct for Commissioners and Cabinets . 
this is in place too . 
Parliament asked the Commission to waive its excessive privileges . 
it did this as well . 
the Commission has also entered into commitments to cooperate with Parliament in terms of SEM 2000 . 
fundamental changes will also be considered for the technical assistance offices . 
these are sound , first steps which illustrate that , if this Parliament so wishes , changes are not only possible but can also be translated into action quickly . 
we want more than that , however . 
the Commission should now produce an ambitious and far @-@ reaching reform programme . 
this is not only necessary for proper public administration , it is a conditio sine qua non of regaining the trust of the European citizen . 
we now demand from the European Commission clear pledges concerning the following points . 
firstly , Parliament must have complete access to all Commission documents . 
this , however , presupposes that we set up an internal scheme quickly in order to be able to guarantee the confidentiality of sensitive documents . 
in the context of providing information , I would like to draw the Commission ' s attention to the fact that we are very concerned about the present draft plans on public access to documents . 
if the current draft is correct , then this is a huge step backwards in comparison to today . 
we must put an end to the situation in which financially powerful organisations with representation in Brussels are able to access information whilst the ordinary citizen is not . 
neither can we tolerate a situation in which a public body holds the copyright to public documents . 
we would also like a clear job description for each European official so that an official with conscientious objections can more easily object to tasks which are unethical or unlawful . 
furthermore , it should be the case that , if the Court of Auditors detects a mistake not just one year but two years running , the management should be held responsible for it , and this will have an effect on chances of promotion . 
ultimately , we also need to achieve better cooperation , of course , between the European Court of Auditors and its national counterparts . 
this Parliament has also asked the Commission to give an initial outline of the external aid policy reforms on 31 March of this year . 
it should no longer be the case that , although Europe is an economic power , we have no political influence because , when the chips are down , we cannot offer effective aid to areas which desperately need it . 
I would quote Gaza as an example . 
it is unacceptable that the Commission completed the construction of a hospital in 1996 and that , as yet , it has been left unused . 
Mr President , since 1996 , the discharge has acquired a heavy , political significance . 
it is one of the most powerful weapons Parliament has and must therefore be deployed with care . 
this is why we will most probably grant the discharge tomorrow . 
however , we are not surrendering this weapon without placing a time bomb in its place . 
indeed , the 1999 discharge will not be given until all financial irregularities highlighted by the Court of Auditors have been cleared up . 
finally , this discharge report is naturally addressed to the Commission . 
but this does not detract from the fact that the European Parliament should also put its own house in order . 
as long as we have no status , we are not credible as a force for reforming the Union . 
the reforms of the European institutions are necessary in order to be able to continue Europe ' s development process . 
we cannot have a decisive and fair Europe unless it is also open and democratic . 
all institutions must now join forces in order to work together towards building this type of Europe . 
Mr President , the Committee on Industry decided to go ahead and draw up a report on the discharge for 1997 although we were not specifically asked to do so . 
we went ahead because we felt we should start this Parliament in the way in which we mean to go on , that is , by making sure that we take good care of taxpayers ' money in Europe . 
during the course of our work on this report it became clear that there are persistent problems in the spending areas under the control of our budget . 
they were not unique to 1997 and two strands seem to run through them . 
the first is a tendency for the Commission to embark on very ambitious programmes , particularly in third countries , without sufficient assessment of the practicalities of implementation and proper resourcing . 
the second involves serious managerial shortcomings in the Commission , in particular in relation to coordination across departments and management of external contracts . 
I know that all the Institutions bear some responsibility for the increasing workload of the Commission and for some of the lack of resources . 
that cannot excuse everything that we came across . 
citizens of Europe expect the European institutions to be properly managed and they are right to do so . 
that is why I want to echo the comments from my colleague about the importance of the reform process which has been promised to the people of Europe by Mr Prodi and Mr Kinnock . 
from what I have seen of the reform process , it looks good . 
I saw some of Mr Kinnock 's papers today , I heard some of what he had to say . 
I have every confidence that if we and the politicians of Europe support him we will see the kind of reform we need . 
but we need that reform process . 
many of the general points raised in our committee 's report have been covered in Mrs van der Laan 's report . 
it is an excellent report and we should all congratulate her on it . 
it seems to hit on all the right points without just being like some of the old reports , a series of details . 
it groups them together and that is very important . 
there are two issues I would like to draw your attention to . 
one is nuclear safety in Eastern Europe . we have to get this right . 
the Committee of Independent Experts said the Commission was not managing this properly . 
we have to remedy that . 
the second point is about scrutiny mechanisms . 
we need from the Commission material we can use to help us scrutinise spending . 
we need proper information , given in a proper way and we all have to take this whole process a lot more seriously than in the past . 
it has been seen as a bureaucratic process to be done as quickly as possible in as little time as possible . 
I hope colleagues in this House will support the grounds for discharge for 1997 and , at the same time , that the Commission will push ahead with the reform process which is long overdue . 
only in this way can we create a new culture in the Commission and at the same time get public confidence restored . 
Mr President , I am sure the Commission will be relieved to hear that the 97 discharge is unlikely to have the same impact as the 96 discharge which , as you are all so very well aware , led to the forced resignation of the Santer Commission . 
the Socialist Group will be voting to grant discharge . 
I am sure you will be relieved to hear that as well . 
but that is not to say that we are satisfied , and that everything in the garden is rosy . 
it is clear that a radical overhaul of the Commission is long overdue . 
it indicates , however , that we acknowledge that steps are being made in the right direction . 
I just want to outline some of the issues that we , as Socialists , have put down as amendments . 
we hope these will be carried because they are important in the way that they will impact on future reform . 
first of all , the immunity of officials : this should be lifted if and when requested by a national prosecutor . 
we need to make it much easier to prosecute officials who are guilty of fraud and corruption . 
it is critical to note that the Commission has too often failed to act on the reforms recommended by the Court of Auditors . 
the Court 's report is there for a reason , our response to it is there for a reason and it is important that it is followed through . 
I have just heard now that an audit progress board is going to be set up by the Commission . 
even if we hear nothing else , we know that is going in the right direction in terms of the reforms that we want to see . 
too often we have put forward recommendations and they have not been acted upon even though you have said very often that you will act on them . 
we want to see that follow @-@ through to a much greater extent in future . 
the other issue is access to confidential documents . 
we have had problems in the past in terms of our responsibility in carrying out discharge because we have not had access to the documents we should have had . 
we understand that we also have a responsibility here , that if we are given documents we must ensure that confidential documents will indeed be kept confidential . 
we have put down an amendment to that effect . 
one issue which is referred to in the van der Laan report is the whole question of the Gaza hospital . 
the situation there is totally unacceptable . 
we will not put up with it for much longer and we are looking for immediate action on that issue . 
I would like to congratulate Lousewies van der Laan . 
I do not usually bother congratulating people but I think she has produced a very cogent report and deserves our thanks . 
Mr President , Commissioner , if we are honest , we find ourselves in a somewhat unusual situation . 
we are discussing last year ' s discharge , but also the Commission ' s responsibility . 
I would like to raise the problems which are still piled up high on our desks . 
the assessment of whether or not the discharge will be granted also depends to some extent on where the emphasis is placed . 
it is about a Commission which is no more . 
there is now a new Commission . 
then it is logical to grant discharge , because how can the current Commissioner be blamed where 1997 is concerned ? 
the problems remain and this gives rise to doubts . 
we have to take a decision now regarding the Commission ' s good intentions , but there is still no structural outline for these good intentions . 
Mr Kinnock will present his proposal next month . 
we are all very much anticipating this , but the facts are still missing at this time when we already have to decide whether or not to grant discharge . 
it is clearly a dilemma with which the rapporteur has also struggled . 
this dilemma stretches beyond the areas which I have already listed . 
take , for example , the pledges made by the Commission . 
they look good in themselves . 
I have read a few documents written by Mr Kinnock and we have every confidence in them . 
but I will give two examples from which it is not as evident that the good intentions which the Commission has now expressed will lead to a good outcome : the public nature and confidentiality of documents . 
the previous speaker already said something about this . 
a document is circulating at the moment - not at a low level , but at a high level within the Commission - which , instead of enhancing the public nature of documents , is having the opposite effect . 
this is an illustration of empty pledges not necessarily leading to good results . 
this also applies to whistle @-@ blowers . 
Mr Kinnock has also devoted some fine @-@ sounding phrases to this subject but , at the same time , it is entirely unclear , at this moment when we have to make a decision , what , for example , happens with whistle @-@ blowers who want to get something off their chest and cannot do this internally but who want to address the outside world - the press or Parliament . 
we have still not had a response to crucial questions of this type . 
so there is doubt as to whether these pledges of the Commission contain enough substance at this crucial time when decisions need to be made . 
this also applies , for example , to the very real projects which the Committee on Industry has introduced . 
in my opinion , the Commission and Mr Kinnock should come with good intentions and with sound plans on personnel policy and financial management , but each Commissioner who is now responsible for an area which has had serious shortcomings in the past should come with sound plans in order to improve the situation and not with general , empty proposals . 
at the moment , our group still feels sympathy for , and patience with , the Commission because it cannot be held responsible for a large proportion of the mistakes made in the past , but this patience has a limit . 
clear progress must be visible . 
at present , we trust that the Commission will produce these sound proposals , but it is not a foregone conclusion that it will do so . 
finally , Mr President , the 1996 discharge was the beginning of the end of the last Commission . 
I express the hope that - in fact , I urge the present Commission to ensure that - the 1997 discharge is the beginning of a true reform of financial policy by the Commission . otherwise this discharge will not have been of any value . 
in assessing the question of whether or not to grant the Commission discharge , the decision must be based upon what actually occurred during the financial year concerned , in this case in the course of 1997 . 
in our Group , we find it hard to see how the financial administration for 1997 was in any crucial way better than that for 1996 . 
in that year , we voted against granting discharge . 
as a result , we shall vote against granting discharge for 1997 , too . 
we think that this picture of ours is confirmed by the examination carried out by the Court of Auditors . 
it is both good and necessary that reforms have been promised . 
so far , the promises which have been made are still , however , to be fulfilled , especially where transparency is concerned . 
we are therefore going to vote in favour of the demands for reforms which are presented in the resolution , but against the granting of discharge . 
Mr President , first of all , I have only positive comments to make on Mrs Van der Laan ' s very expert work on this report . 
the Union for a Europe of Nations Group cannot vote for approving the accounts for 1997 . 
the report on so @-@ called discharge contains a comprehensive and extremely critical survey of the accounts . 
we support these critical remarks , and I must therefore state that it would seem quite absurd , against this background , to vote in favour of approving the accounts . 
it has not been possible for the Court of Auditors to issue an auditor ' s statement to the effect that the arrangements covered by the accounts are lawful , and we should regard it as extremely problematic if we , as Members of this Parliament , were to vote in favour of accounts without having any guarantee of the legality of the arrangements concerned . 
the majority have made their approval of the accounts conditional upon the new Commission ' s implementing a series of reforms , so as to ensure that what we are familiar with from the previous Commission ' s period of office is not repeated . 
again , I must say that we are concerned here with an extremely unfortunate confusion of the old Commission ' s accountability for 1997 and the new Commission ' s accountability for the future . 
we do not think that the new Commission , under any circumstances , could incur liability for the past . 
we think it is wrong to talk about the Commission ' s liability as an institution . the mistakes up until 1999 are attributable to those who had responsibility at that time , and we still have no way of knowing whether the new Commission can do any better . 
by means of this extraordinary procedure , Parliament is stopping itself from placing liability for the arrangements in 1997 squarely where it belongs , namely with the previous Commission . 
it was the 1996 accounts which led to the downfall of the previous Commission , and the 1997 accounts are just as incriminating . 
there is no reason why , against this background , we should agree to grant discharge . 
as far as the decision to balance the accounts is concerned , we shall abstain from voting , and where , finally , the motion for a resolution is concerned , we shall attach most importance to the many correct instructions contained in this and vote in favour of it . 
Mr President , the decision relating to discharge for the 1997 financial year was postponed because the erstwhile Commission , to whom it was to be granted , had stepped down before the appointed time and was only continuing in office in a caretaker capacity . 
Mrs van der Laan ' s report - on which she has lavished a great deal of hard work , and for which we are indebted to her - proposes that we should grant discharge to the Commission for 1997 . 
one might ask how it is that the current Commission is to receive the discharge for its predecessor ' s budgetary management - Mr Camre just mentioned this - particularly as the discharge for the previous year , 1996 , was denied . 
that is just the way things are , however . 
in taking over the mandate , the new Commission has to assume responsibility not just for the achievements of the past but also for the mistakes made . 
since , on account of the college system , discharge can only be granted to the Commission as a whole or , alternatively , denied or postponed , it is no longer of any consequence that four former Commissioners who belonged to the previous Commission that has yet to be discharged , crop up again as Members of this body . 
this question ought to have been asked when the new Commission was appointed . 
if Parliament votes in favour of the Committee on Budgetary Control ' s proposal this week and grants discharge , then the Commission must not take this to be a blank cheque . 
for it is the third section of Mrs van der Laan ' s report that is the most important , to my mind , namely the motion for a resolution . 
the comments contained within , under eight headings , are an integral part of the discharge , the implementation of which forms the basis of our decision . 
in the course of the discharge procedure for the coming years - that for 1998 is already under way - Parliament will have to examine , as a matter of urgency , whether or not it was too quick to bestow premature praise on the Commission for 1997 . 
we will be in a position to judge just as soon as the Commission presents its reform programme . 
we will be able to use the discharge procedure for 1998 to check whether efficiency , transparency and accountability , and likewise a sincere willingness to provide information , are being displayed vis @-@ à-vis the discharge authority . 
Mr President , we all recall that Parliament decided to postpone the discharge for the 1997 financial year pending commitments from the new European Commission regarding internal reform . 
in response to this the Commission has entered into various commitments and has certainly adopted many reform measures . 
it is fair to say that the new President , Mr Prodi , and his team are certainly committed to implementing the financial control requirements as laid down by this Parliament . 
however , the reform of the European Commission must now be taken in the context of the debate that is going to take place in the run @-@ up to the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference and the reform of various EU policies and initiatives . 
existing EU treaties will be amended so as to ensure , for example , that the enlargement process can succeed . 
I have no doubt further reform of EU institutions will be analysed in this debate . 
but from the perspective of small Member States it is important that , as the European Commission is reformed , it must be done in a way that ensures that small Member States continue to have representation on the Commission . 
Mr President , the Commission is now to obtain its discharge for 1997 , but in reality it does not deserve it . 
1997 was a matter for the old Commission and , therefore , the new Commission does not think that it can accept liability . 
it is true that implementation of the Budget for 1997 fell within the old Commission ' s remit . 
the new Commission has , on the other hand , undertaken to carry out a cleaning up exercise following former scandals , and I must admit that I am not impressed at all . 
the old mindset which involved sweeping things under the carpet and protecting one ' s friends unfortunately still exists . 
there are some who think that it is more in our interests to let bygones be bygones and make a fresh start . 
I do not , however , think we can make a fresh start if we do not tidy things up properly . 
I am referring here especially to the earlier scandals involving ECHO . 
I am very indignant about the fact that it is so difficult to get any documents handed over on this matter . 
I am the rapporteur for ECHO on the Committee on Budgetary Control , and I shall have a lot of difficulty carrying out my work if the Commission will not give me the necessary information . 
from the outside , it looks as if the Commission has something to hide . 
my investigations also unfortunately suggest that this could be the case . 
the Commission is not putting all its cards on the table and is in that way repeating ancient practice on the part of the Commission . 
it was this practice which led to the Commission ' s downfall . 
I can therefore fully support the demand to give Parliament unconditional right of access to documents . 
otherwise , we cannot carry out our work . 
thank you , Commissioner Schreyer . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. 
response to Second Report of Committee of Independent Experts 
the next item is the report ( A5 @-@ 0001 / 2000 ) by Mr van Hulten , on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control , on action to be taken on the second report of the Committee of Independent Experts on reform of the Commission . 
Mr President , this time last year the European Parliament set up a committee of independent experts chaired by Mr Middelhoek to investigate allegations of fraud , nepotism and corruption in the European Commission . 
on 15 March the committee published its first report concluding that : " it is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility " . 
within a few hours of the presentation of the report President Santer announced the resignation of his entire team . 
the resignation marked the end of a bitter struggle between an increasingly confident Parliament and a European Commission mired in allegations of scandal . 
since then the Brussels landscape has changed beyond recognition ; a new , reinvigorated Parliament has been elected and a new Commission confirmed in office . 
speaking in this House on 21 July President @-@ designate Prodi undertook to take full account of the second report of the Committee of Independent Experts on Commission reform , which contains 90 detailed recommendations and which we are debating today . 
the new Commission has already taken important steps to move away from the way it used to function . 
a code of conduct for Commissioners and their private offices has been adopted . 
in a symbolic but significant gesture Commissioners have voluntarily renounced their entitlement to the tax @-@ free purchase of alcohol , tobacco , petrol and consumer goods . 
new rules have been drawn up and implemented governing the appointment of senior officials . 
the number of departments has been reduced . 
the Commission , in my opinion , has shown a clear and unprecedented commitment to change and for this they are to be congratulated . 
the overall aim of the reforms must be to create a strong , honest European public administration equipped to carry out its tasks in an effective and efficient manner ; an administration in which officials are provided with the means to carry out their tasks and are held fully accountable at all levels ; an administration that recognises and rewards merit and encourages officials to develop their full potential . 
in order to achieve this , action is required in four areas . 
first , financial management and control within the Commission must be improved . 
one of the main problems is the lack of a functioning system of financial control . 
the Commission 's DGs must be made fully responsible for their own expenditure , including financial control . 
a new independent audit system service must be set up . 
DGs must publish their own annual accounts so as to enable a clear identification of problem areas and set annual targets for reducing fraud and irregularities . 
in return for this greater degree of autonomy , managers must be made fully and personally responsible for their actions . 
it is clear that the transition to such a new system will take time . 
changes to the Financial Regulation will be required and Parliament must have its say on those changes . 
but while the Commission must ensure that it respects the Treaty and the Financial Regulation in the transitional phase , this must not be an excuse for inertia . 
urgent change is required today . 
second , the fight against fraud , mismanagement and nepotism must be strengthened , firstly by creating a culture in which they cannot thrive . 
this requires a clear example to be set by Commissioners and senior staff as well as adequate training and secondly , by reinforcing the existing mechanisms for dealing with fraud . 
OLAF , the Commission agency set up earlier this year must be placed under the direction of an independent European public prosecutor whose job will be to prepare for prosecution by national criminal courts , criminal offences committed against the financial interests of the Union by Members and officials of the European institutions . 
a proposal can be made , a proposal should be made , on the basis of Article 280 of the Treaty , by the middle of this year . 
third , standards in European public life must be upheld . 
the political crisis which led to the downfall of the Commission earlier this year clearly demonstrated the need for unambiguous and enforceable rules of conduct . 
a number of codes have since been introduced . 
they must be assessed by Parliament and should be made legally binding . 
the European institutions should follow the example of a number of countries , most notably the United Kingdom , and institute a committee for standards in public life , with a mandate to give advice on professional ethics and rules of conduct in the European institutions . 
whistle @-@ blowers who act in good faith must be protected . 
at the end of last year Mr Kinnock announced new measures for the protection of whistle @-@ blowers . 
they must be implemented without delay . 
although such measures can never be an alternative for good management , they must be an escape valve when something goes wrong . 
crucially , reforms must not be limited to the Commission . 
Parliament must consider itself the need for improvements to its internal rules , administrative procedures and management practices . 
finally , the Commission 's human resource policy must be modernised . 
it is clearly no longer suited to the requirements of a modern , multinational organisation . 
the social dialogue has often acted as a brake on reform and its overhaul is long overdue . 
a career with the European institutions must become more attractive . 
too many young , new officials are leaving their jobs after just a few years . 
merit must be recognised and rewarded , specific skills training should be a sine qua non for promotion to a higher grade . 
the promotions procedure must be made fairer and more transparent . 
last but not least the pay and benefits package must be reviewed . 
it must become more flexible and more responsible to labour market conditions . 
it must be rid of some of its more outdated elements ; and it must deal with the legitimate concerns of the general public who cannot understand why European civil servants should be paid an expatriation allowance indefinitely in a Europe of open borders , or pay a level of taxes that is often well below that of Member States . 
Commissioner Kinnock will , tomorrow , present his communication on reform . 
this communication must contain a clear timetable . 
with a new Commission and a new Parliament up and running the momentum for reform is now as strong as it ever has been and probably ever will be . 
enlargement of the Union is just a few years away . 
now is the time for Europe to put its own house in order ; to instil in its institutions - as the independent experts might have said - a sense of responsibility . 
in June of last year Europe 's voters gave a clear signal that they are fed up with endless stories about mismanagement and nepotism . 
there is a very simple way to deal with those stories . 
let us get rid of mismanagement and nepotism . 
Mr President , I do not want to be misunderstood - I sincerely hope this does not happen - and I should therefore like to start by saying that I am , of course , in favour of combating fraud and firmly support the appropriate , necessary reforms . 
this is not a straightforward issue and calls for a much more wide @-@ ranging analysis , but I shall restrict myself to raising only a few points , in order to make people more aware , if possible , of what we are talking about . 
all the experts can provide information and news , formulate opinions and give advice , but , they have no political or elective responsibility , and rightly so . 
I nevertheless believe that politicians should look into what can be gleaned from an expert report and what cannot be taken en masse in a spirit which , on some occasions , I have felt in the past and still feel to be self @-@ destructive . 
I believe - and I shall only pick up on a few ideas - that Parliament alone , and no one else , can exert an influence over its Members . if this were not the case , the European Parliament ' s authority and representativeness would be seriously undermined in the coming years , and this institution would not move forward , as it should . 
it is just as important for no @-@ one to be able to or have to refuse the European Parliament or its committees any documentation . 
Members of Parliament must possess the qualities of morality , discipline and discretion over delegated issues innately , and these certainly cannot be imposed on them by anyone else . 
I would point out that there is no European legal system , but that a different legal system exists in each Member State . 
we run the risk of delegating issues relating to the same offences which will then be punished in different ways . 
I agree that an investigation system should be introduced , but I am also absolutely convinced that we must recognise the right to equal respect for dignity and , in any case , the equal need for the right to a defence . 
I am opposed to European Community officials being accused of criminal acts at the drop of a hat : whistle @-@ blowing is a method that has no place in the third millennium . 
in conclusion , Mr President , Parliament must introduce a principle of democracy : we must implement reforms which allow Parliament to grow and expand its powers , not go into reverse . 
this debate on the van Hulten report brings to a close one of the most traumatic periods for the European institutions since their creation in 1957 . 
the refusal of the European Parliament to grant discharge and the definitive refusal for the 1996 budget ; the motion of censure tabled in this House a year ago for differing reasons ; and the first report of the Committee of Independent Experts on the reform of the Commission which led to the mass resignation of the Commission itself , are now part of European folklore . 
those of us involved in these historic events are well aware that none of the upheaval would have been caused had we not acted with parliamentary power to press for changes in the way in which the Commission operated . 
remember that the Council of Ministers , absent again this evening from our debate , approved the 1997 discharge - not the 1996 - on the very day the Commission itself resigned on 15 March . 
now we come to the second report of the Committee of Independent Experts which we already had the opportunity to welcome and briefly debate last September . 
our greatest concern in the EPP is to ensure that public confidence in the European Commission is restored . 
further steps to build a strong Europe will be to no avail if the European peoples perceive that there is no adequate system of democratic accountability for over @-@ zealous officials . 
under no circumstances will we concede ground which we have won over the past few months , which we believe to be in the interests of openness and transparency . 
we are therefore concerned to see the flurry of Commission announcements in recent weeks by Commissioner Kinnock suggesting policy proposals of various kinds to be put in a White Paper shortly . 
while conveying a desire to proceed rapidly , it also gives the impression that the Commission is in transmission rather than listening mode . 
our concern is strengthened if the rumour reported a few days ago is true - namely that the Commission wants to limit severely the access of Parliament to information . 
this was , after all , one of the causes of the downfall of the last Commission . 
have the lessons not been learnt ? 
the knowledge that the framework relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission still remain to be negotiated led to our disagreement with the rapporteur when we debated his report in committee . 
we could , in no way , agree with his view that it would be demeaning for Parliament to set out detailed instructions as to what we wanted the Commission to take up in its reform package . 
the less precise , Mr van Hulten , we are in our resolutions , the more room it gives the Commission and your former colleagues in the Council to do what they like . 
we believe the vast number of recommendations of the Wise Men ' s report should be implemented . 
we have , as the EPP @-@ ED group , submitted all the recommendations of the Wise Men ' s report in committee and many of them have now been put into the report , entirely changing the nature of the van Hulten report in committee . 
we have resubmitted a few amendments which fell in committee , in particular , our desire to see the codes of conduct revised specifically to include the reference to merit and managerial capacity which you , Commissioner , accepted - when we had our hearings last September - should be included in these codes of conduct , particularly when considering appointments and promotion . 
looking to the future , we know that we are at the beginning of a long process of continuing reform in the European Commission . 
we want in particular to see the hard @-@ working and highly competent norm for Commission officials acknowledged in the outside world - a reputation that has been darkened by the inappropriate conduct of a few individuals . 
Commissioner , you will be aware from your presence in the last Commission why the crisis occurred . 
in a nutshell : there were programmes being run for which there were insufficient staff resources available . 
we urge you to take the opportunity to establish the real staffing needs of the Commission based on the essential activities for which it is responsible . 
our position was made very clear on this topic in the 2000 budget . 
we will be vigilant over the next five years to ensure the reforms now being suggested are fully implemented and will support efforts made to modernise institutions . 
but , equally , we will not hesitate to withdraw our support financially or otherwise should steps be taken which do not correspond to the openness promised by Commission President Romano Prodi prior to his nomination . 
let us hope that we can avoid institutional upheavals by having an ongoing dialogue which assumes from the outset that Parliament will be an equal partner in deciding the outcome of Commission reform . 
Mr President , I must start by apologising that I cannot be nearly as dramatic as Mr Elles in my presentation . 
can I first thank Mr van Hulten for this report . 
it is an excellent report . 
it would have been wrong for Parliament to have put in willy nilly every single recommendation that came from an external body because Parliament should have its own opinion on these issues . 
it is right for us to have a focused report which is what Mr van Hulten has produced . 
can I invite Mr Elles not to put the cart before the horse . 
yes , a lot of things were lost by the Socialists but they have not been won in plenary yet , and may I warn him that may not be the case tomorrow . 
I should like to thank Commissioner Kinnock for all his efforts so far . 
he has been clear that his commitment has been to produce a radical change . 
Central to this is the attempt to produce and engender responsibility . 
it is clear that this needs to be developed at all levels and it needs to recognise the needs of each level within the Commission . 
it is clear that we need to see a change in the Financial Regulation . 
that is important . 
we need to stop people passing the buck from one to another . 
where failure is occurring within the Commission we need to hold people responsible . 
we need to be assured that consistent under @-@ performance must lead to dismissal . 
this is natural elsewhere but it seems to be an extremely radical suggestion when it is put to the Commission . 
we cannot continue with a situation where incompetence , mismanagement and fraud are costing the European taxpayers money and providing them with a poor service . 
I will give you one example of this . 
in the 1998 Court of Auditors report an exchange rate miscalculation in relation to Italian wine cost the taxpayers of Europe GBP 8 to 10 million . 
it is clear that is not acceptable . 
what happened to the person who was responsible for that miscalculation ? 
we need a system which provides incentives and promotion and we need to see this promotion based on merit . 
we recognise that most of the officials within the Commission are extremely hard @-@ working . 
but we also recognise that some of the practices are outdated . 
we look forward to reading the full Commission proposal on reform and we look forward to working out the detail alongside the Commission because , unlike what Mr Elles has just said , the Commissioner has made a commitment to discuss it with Parliament between now and 1 March . 
we also need to recognise that people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones . 
the European Parliament has not exactly been clean in its approach to things throughout its history . 
we have a long way to go before we are perfect ourselves . 
our own staff policy is outdated . 
some of our working practices need radical reform . 
I hope that the European Parliament will be hanging onto the coattails of the Commission in this reform process . 
we recognise the proposals on activity @-@ based budgeting . 
we recognise that means discipline on the part of Commission officials and we recognise also that we have a responsibility within Parliament on discipline when we talk about negative priorities . 
finally , can I say that the Commission needs to work on its relationships with the public . 
European taxpayers need to be re @-@ assured . 
the fate of the Commission , of the whole European Union , rests on delivery of this reform . 
that is the key issue , delivery of these proposals . 
Mr President , I would like to start by extending my compliments to the rapporteur , Mr van Hulten , on his first report . 
I very much admire him for keeping his spirits up at a time when he was inundated with so many amendments . 
I think that the report drawn up by the Wise Men has been useful and I think that it is also useful for this Parliament - as already stated by Mrs Morgan - that we ourselves should ask for expertise from outside for once to see how our administration is run . 
we have submitted an amendment to this effect . 
from the many points made by Mr van Hulten in his report , I would like to highlight a few , not necessarily in order of importance but just randomly . 
firstly , I think that the Commission should pay much more attention to the proper storage of documents . 
the Commission ' s records leave a great deal to be desired . 
we noticed this when we had to investigate the Flechard affair , which , as it happens , has still not been sorted out . 
curiously , very important documents had gone missing from the cabinets , even from those of the President and of various Directorates @-@ General , and this is clearly something which should not happen . 
if Parliament want to carry out proper inspections , these documents must be available , and I would like to know what the Commission intends to do to improve this situation . 
I would also like to say a few words about ex post financial control . 
this has also been partly dealt with in the van Hulten report . 
I think it would be useful if we were to give report figures per category and per sector on how the budget is implemented . 
the general impression at present is that anything budget @-@ related within Europe is bad . 
it is clear that , over the past couple of years , we have noticed an upward trend in agriculture and a downward one in structural expenditure . is this possible ? 
I would like to suggest to the Commission that it prescribe a deadline by which the reforms have to be carried out . 
if we admit new Member States then we need to put our own House in order first . 
Mr President , I would firstly like to thank Mr van Hulten . 
it is his first report here in plenary . 
this is worth a compliment although I regret , of course , that he did not expound it in his own mother tongue . 
it is a report which came about with difficulty and may well be too late . 
in my opinion , this is mainly down to the wrangling between the two major groups within our Committee on Budgetary Control . 
let us be honest . 
the second report of the Wise Men arrived in September . 
we are now four months down the line . 
meanwhile , Mr van Hulten has been inundated with amendments , more than 100 amendments in the first round . 
he went back to work , rewrote his report and took into account the very many suggestions , but had to face nearly another 100 amendments in the second round . 
my fear is that all of this has contributed to a report which is too detailed , too extensive and too late . 
moreover , I have been informed that the Commission has approved a report - today of all days - on the reform of the Commission which will be distributed for further consultation to the various institutions and also to our Parliament , I hope . might Mr Kinnock be able to throw some light on the matter this evening ? 
Mr van Hulten , my Group of the Greens and regionalists will support the attempts in tomorrow afternoon ' s plenary meeting to embellish this report . 
after all , it makes no sense to copy the many sound recommendations made by the Committee of Wise Men word for word in your report . 
so tomorrow , if we vote against some amendments or against specific paragraphs , this is certainly not on account of their content but rather to render your report as a whole more readable . 
in any case , it should be clear that my group , of course , fully backs the recommendations made by the Committee of Wise Men . 
in any event , I look forward to the document which was approved by the Commission today . 
I also look forward to the White Paper which will be available in February . 
I have to inform you , Commissioner , that both the report of the Wise Men and that of Mr van Hulten will become gauges for our group , gauges which should make it clear to us whether we can have confidence in the Prodi Commission or not . 
I would like to end on the following point . 
just as the White Paper on food safety was approved last week and released to public opinion with a clear deadline stated , we would request the same in connection with the new White Paper on the reform of the Commission . 
I think that there is a need for this , as public opinion is looking for change and , in any event , my group would like to see a clear change by the end of 2002 . 
Mr President , this report is positive but , actually , we need more than this . 
fraud , mismanagement and nepotism do not come from nowhere . 
they are most likely to occur if there is little democratic control on cash flow . 
via the structural funds , a great deal of the European budget is being pumped around the system . 
this is only useful as long as there is a sense of solidarity where rich Member States contribute to both the revenue and development of poorer Member States . 
but there is also funding which is being pumped via Brussels back to the same rich Member States . 
districts and regional authorities consider this as their own money but they can only get their hands on this by investing vast amounts of money and manpower in lobbying and negotiating . 
after each incident of improper use of this money , and certainly after fraud , the call for stricter control is more pronounced . 
even the strictest control cannot solve this problem . 
it will , at best , lead to more bureaucracy and less room for local democracy and for people to get involved in choosing and developing projects . 
it would be preferable if national governments channelled this money directly to their local governments without a European detour . 
in the next couple of years , we will need to think about the possibility of replacing structural funds by an equalisation fund which is limited to budgetary aid for Member States or their constituent regions with a low income per capita of the population . 
this is probably the only way to achieve less fraud , less overheads , more transparency and more democracy . 
Mr President , a year has not yet passed , but it is already clear that Parliament is going to evaluate the first and second reports differently . 
the first report was widely publicised , formally debated and used - just like the controversy and news leaks which preceded it - to make mincemeat , first of the President of the Commission , and then of the majority of the European Commissioners , even though they had no connection with fraud , mismanagement or nepotism . 
it is of no concern to the major groups in Parliament , nor to the majority of the trade unions , who are busy discussing the defence of European public administration , but , in practice , are occupied with the corporate protection of their own members , putting the wide powers afforded to them to dubious use . 
trade union representatives sit on the Disciplinary Board and the Staff Regulations Committee , thereby making it impossible to remove disloyal officials and preserving the Staff Regulations in their fossilised state . 
incomprehensibly , trade union representatives are also members of committees on competition , and I would not be surprised if union members were already members of OLAF , thereby placing this institution which should , at least formally , guarantee its impartiality , at great risk . 
I therefore understand why we are meeting at this time , which is usually set aside for other activities and not for debates , discussions and the exchange of information . 
Mr President , when it comes to putting its own house in order , the European Commission is in a Catch @-@ 22 situation . 
there is enormous pressure of expectation following the events that led to the resignation of the previous Commission . 
I sometimes have the impression that the more radical the proposals made here in this Chamber sound , the more applause they receive . 
there again , it is simply not possible to change situations once and for all with a few strokes of the pen , and the problems begin as soon as we have to start talking about implementation and getting down to brass tacks . 
this may explain why we experienced more difficulties than anticipated in the Committee on Budgetary Control as regards this issue . 
nevertheless , the outcome is now on the table and there for all to see , and I would expressly like to thank Mr van Hulten for the work he has done on this report . 
provided this report is not watered @-@ down yet again by the adoption of amendments , it will afford us the opportunity to make clear and unambiguous demands of the Commission on a number of crucial points . 
allow me to start with the most important demand . 
we do not want financial control to be abolished . 
the financial controller should still be able to make checks before funding commitments or payments are made , not in every case , but wherever uncertainties or risks arise . 
the Commission is sending out the wrong signals here , by renaming the Directorate @-@ General for Financial Control as the Directorate @-@ General for Audits , for example . 
it may well be easy enough to change the Commission ' s organisation chart but it is a different matter when it comes to the legal texts , particularly those relating to budgetary discipline . 
I do not have exact figures , but the Community ' s budgetary discipline and the associated implementing provisions apply to almost 100 different areas of responsibility of the financial controller , to his or her independence and the tasks assigned to this office . 
this cannot be ignored or evaded , certainly not on account of soft law , as was once suggested at a meeting of our Committee . 
irrespective of such legal considerations , it would be an unforgivable mistake , under the circumstances , to scrap financial control in the traditional sense at the very moment when those responsible for such matters in the Commission are , at long last , no longer out on a limb but set to become part of a chain of functioning supervisory and investigatory mechanisms . 
as we see it , there will be a dovetailing of three mechanisms in the future : a system of independent prior approval by the financial controller , concomitant and follow @-@ up control by the internal audit service - also known as the audit service - which has yet to be set up , and finally , there will be the targeted tracking @-@ down of irregularities by OLAF , the new anti @-@ fraud office . 
it is to be welcomed that Mr van Hulten ' s report makes the connection between all three areas and also makes it clear as to where the crucial shortcomings lie , which must be tackled . 
a few salient points : the disciplinary procedures are not taking effect , especially when it comes to calling officials to account for their misdemeanours , including those of a financial nature . 
there is a large grey area and a great lack of clarity where criminal sanctions are concerned , and it is precisely in this area that the announcements made by the Commission are rather vague . 
I can only emphasise that these are the really hard nuts that finally need to be cracked . 
Mr President , firstly I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to my colleague , Mr van Hulten . 
it is a good feeling to be able to say that he is from our delegation and I am , I think , entitled to feel a little proud of him . 
I would in any case like to congratulate him on his report . 
Mr President , the Commission ' s resignation has also created a culture of fear amongst many officials within the hierarchy and large bureaucracy . 
the call to make a cultural U @-@ turn and embrace a culture of responsibility seems to me a very fundamental one . 
I have witnessed from close up within the Development Committee how thousands of projects stagnate and how sometimes up to 80 % of the money is not spent . 
sometimes , an enormous reservoir of money is created , not because it is not desperately needed , not because there are no sound proposals , but because the whole system has collapsed . 
a lack of responsibility , too much ex ante , not enough ex post and , as a result , far too little in the way of a culture of real effective spending . 
it would be marvellous if this report were to give the green light to result @-@ oriented spending of this kind , with all the work organised on that basis . 
when the Commission ' s first draft report soon becomes the official report on 1 March , I very much hope that our input here will help ensure that we will actually witness this change . 
without any doubt , this will then be a service , Mr President , to the European public and , by means of the results we produce , we will also regain and re @-@ acquire something which we have ostensibly lost over the past couple of years . 
this is the best support we can give to European democracy . 
if , in this way , we can move away from the culture of the fifties and cross over into the next century , we are witnessing a very special moment indeed . 
Mr President , first of all , congratulations to Michiel van Hulten for his first report . 
it was a baptism of fire but we have a saying in the Netherlands appropriate for this occasion : in at the deep end and you will swim in no time . 
Mr van Hulten , I think you deserve a medal for your efforts . 
there are two points which , in my opinion , deserve special attention on the part of the ELDR . 
firstly , there is the Commissioners ' individual responsibility . 
this must be regulated during the IGC . 
however , we should not like this important issue to end up entirely in the hands of the Council and we have , therefore , submitted an amendment in which we ask whether an interinstitutional agreement could be reached between the Commission and Parliament in order to ensure that we have a kind of fall @-@ back position and are not placing our fate completely in the hands of the Council . 
secondly , as already mentioned by my colleague , Mr Mulder , the ELDR is of the opinion that the European Parliament should also be investigated by independent experts . 
this will contribute hugely towards re @-@ establishing the confidence of the European citizens in this institution . 
we at the European Parliament cannot be a credible counterpart to this reformed Commission as long as we do not search our hearts and put our own House in order as well . 
only when all European institutions are reformed will we have the open , democratic and decisive Europe which our citizens now finally deserve . 
Mr President , I also wish to congratulate Mr van Hulten on this first piece of work which he is presenting to the House . 
I am sure that it will serve , amongst other things , to make his second report more flexible and for him to step up efforts to find a consensus amongst the groups . 
at this stage , there can be no delay in the process of reforming the Commission , demanded by our citizens . 
this Parliament has often heard the desire to reform the Commission expressed , even by its Presidents . 
it now appears that this desire is more serious . 
after the resignation of a Commission and after a Committee of Experts has listed an almost endless number of deficiencies , it makes sense that Mr Prodi should have promised , on 14 September , to present this Parliament with a complete plan for reform by February . 
this Parliament anxiously awaits this complete reform programme . 
the report that we are debating today intends to give political force to many of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts commissioned by this Parliament . 
Mr Prodi said he would act anyway , that he preferred to get things right , but that fear of not getting things right would not prevent him from acting . 
we therefore ask that his programme be a bold one and , if it is , I can assure him that he will have the support of this House in the reform process . 
we want a strong Commission , which can act in an independent and neutral manner , but with political sense . 
Commissioners should not be considered senior officials but rather politicians in office . 
therefore , the report allows them to be members of political parties and to be members of political bodies affiliated to their parties . 
perhaps the reference to the posts is imprecise . 
I do not know your exact view in this respect , Mr Kinnock , but it is clear that we want Commissioners who are politically strong and politically committed . 
we want a structure which allows every Euro to be spent effectively , and our accounts demonstrate that this is not happening at present . 
therefore , Commissioner , we ask Mr Prodi to present us with a bold programme , and he will find that he has problems with those bodies who feel that their status quo is under threat , but not with this Parliament , which expects profound and daring changes . 
Mr President , the Santer Commission came to grief because financial control failed all down the line . 
therefore , the future of this new Commission will depend in no small measure on the extent to which reforms are swiftly undertaken here and financial control is back in working order . 
as far as this is concerned , a number of people have already referred to the fact that the Commission intends to drastically improve and consolidate its follow @-@ up checks and that these checks should be carried out on a completely independent basis , with no sweeping of matters under the carpet in future . 
naturally , this is only to be welcomed . 
what I do not understand is why this has to come at a price , as it were , that is , of having to dispense with independent - and I stress , independent - prior approval . 
up until now , the Commission ' s payments could only be made when the authorising officer signed the appropriate order and the financial controller gave his approval in the form of a visa . 
and so it is the " two key " principle that applies here . 
a single key is to suffice in future . 
the financial controller is no longer to make advance checks , if all goes to plan as regards the reforms currently under discussion within the Commission . 
if you will pardon me for saying so , Mr Kinnock , what you are proposing is a little like abolishing the police because they were unable to prevent crimes . 
what we really need to focus on , however , is making the checks more effective . 
this could be achieved by no longer insisting , in future , that the financial controllers furnish every single payment transaction with their approval stamp . 
it is precisely those who feel the need to control everything that end up controlling nothing at all . 
therefore , in future , prior approval should take place in a targeted manner , that is , only in cases of uncertainty or risk . 
the officials responsible for financial control should be deployed on a decentralised basis , that is , in the operational Directorates @-@ General , amongst those of their colleagues that spend the money , so that they are immediately available when problems arise and so as to render the checks less ponderous and time @-@ consuming . 
however , the financial controllers must work independently . 
that is the crucial difference between our plans and those of the Commission , when it talks in terms of decentralisation . 
it is obviously the Commission ' s intention to make the financial control officials subordinate to the individual Directorates @-@ General , but this is precisely what we do not want . 
surely we have learnt this much from the events surrounding the Leonardo affair , when the internal examiners in the relevant Directorate @-@ General issued warnings , but these were neither heeded nor passed on . 
therefore , independence is prerequisite for effective checks . 
that is the position which a clear majority of the Committee on Budgetary Control subscribes to . 
indeed , the new Commission has now declared itself in favour of follow @-@ up checks having this independence , and so would it not make sense for a system of prior approval to enjoy such independence as well ? 
I believe we should set the seal on this point at tomorrow ' s vote . 
Mrs Theato has already expressed as much and I am only too willing to support her in this regard . 
Mr President , a couple of years ago , the previous Commission tried once and for all to tackle rigid and obsolescent structures . 
this led to strikes and smear campaigns by intransigent trade unions , whereupon the proposals were abandoned and replaced by a wishy @-@ washy compromise . 
this was stupid of the old Commission , and Parliament was of no help on that occasion . 
when I read Mr van Hulten ' s passage about personnel policy , I am afraid that Parliament may again be failing to tackle the crucial issues and just spouting a lot of hot air . 
there are too many rights , too many regulations and too little room for leadership . 
there is no backbone , and no teeth . 
where is the beef ? 
and I would also say this to you , Commissioner : please , deliver the beef even if it is British . 
Romano Prodi promised a revolution . 
you have said some powerful and worthwhile things yourself , but take care now that you do not dodge the crucial issues , the ones where it hurts ! 
sort out the tangle of staff allowances . 
stand firm on the demand for mobility , not as a right , as it says here in the report , but as a management tool . 
ensure too , that training becomes a management tool . 
do not listen to the report ' s demands that temporary staff should have their employment confirmed . 
it is the posts which should possibly be made permanent and not necessarily those employed on a temporary basis . 
finally , Mr President , as a member of the Bureau until six months ago , I would urge you to address this issue in the Bureau so that we here in Parliament at least comply , in our own administration , with the demands we are making on others . 
we have not done this so far , and this is something you ought to be instrumental in changing . 
Mr President , I want to thank Mr van Hulten for his report and to say that I voted for it . 
so I refer to the things I do not agree with . 
I do not agree with the paragraphs in relation to Parliament . 
this report is about the Commission . 
Parliament is a separate subject . 
there is no need for us to bring Parliament into the discussion on the Commission . 
in addition to that , there is the question of duty @-@ free . 
that was a stick used to beat the Commission by the duty @-@ free lobbies who resented the fact that the Commission abolished duty @-@ free in airports . 
it is not worthy of being brought into this report either . 
most of the report is about financial control . 
that is reasonable because it comes from the Budgetary Control Committee . 
but we should not create the impression that vast amounts of European resources are being put at risk by carelessness in the European Commission . 
after all , it is only 1 % of GDP , by comparison with national spending . 
we have had all that before but some people in this Parliament are young and do not seem to understand how small the financial resources of the European Union are and that 80 % of these resources are spent by the Member States . 
so carelessness within the Commission in the spending of money is not likely to put at risk vast quantities of money . 
we should get it into perspective . 
it is important to remember that . 
the business of the European Commission is very little about spending money . 
they have very little of it . 
they have a much wider responsibility . 
that wider responsibility concerns the management of the environment , food safety , foreign trade , the internal market and so many other responsibilities we have given them without the resources to deal with them . 
I am not one of the people who agrees that there is a vast lack of trust . 
if there is , we have generated it in this House in the past year . 
I have been here for 20 years and found absolute trust between the Council , the Commission and Parliament . 
we have had our problems and we recognised difficulties but there was not a situation where this bureaucratic Commission was mistrusted , doubted and feared by the citizens of the European Union because they were mismanaging our affairs . 
that is a gross exaggeration of what the difficulties were . 
this Commission should not have to live forever in the shadow of the mistakes that caused the resignation of the Commission that went before it . 
while there were problems - and we have to resolve them in view of enlargement , for instance - we sometimes take the negative side too far . 
Mr President , Commissioners , first of all , I cannot help but reflect upon the fact that this is , on the whole , a Dutch @-@ British @-@ Scandinavian debate where the speakers are concerned . 
perhaps this is a little worrying . 
I hope , like so many others , that the state of emergency in relations between the Commission and Parliament is on the way to being resolved . 
we must get away from the idea that we are rushing to put out a fire in one corner , only then to have to rush again to put out the next one . 
as Mr Blak said , we must instead establish a system with clear roles . 
first of all , we need tough regulations , which can be implemented . 
codes of conduct and ethical committees are not enough . 
there need to be tough rules stating , among other things , what may be decentralised , what may be outsourced and what is independent . 
I find it a little worrying that people are clamouring for independence in this debate without defining what it is in relation to which there is to be independence and without defining what right of decision @-@ making is to be exercised . 
what we need , then , are basic administrative regulations for the EU , for its institutions and for the EU in its relations with the Member States . 
these are what are missing . 
we have asked for a Public Prosecutor ' s Office and criminal law , but we also need administrative law for the EU . 
we should make a good deal of progress if the Commission were to adopt , as binding regulations , the ombudsman ' s proposal of a code of conduct for good administrative practice . 
the van Hulten report is a step in the right direction , but it is not enough . 
secondly , we must also clarify our own auditing roles . 
the Court of Auditors is to monitor the extent to which actions are incompatible with the regulations , but it should not examine the expediency of a particular action . 
it is the European Parliament which is to carry out the political evaluation . 
we do not hunt down criminals . that is OLAF ' s job . 
tell me what national parliament , for example , is handed all preliminary investigation documents . 
obstinate as I am , I also want to say that the regulations governing public access to official records must be clearly better than the draft which has been circulating on the Internet . otherwise , we shall not get anywhere in this fight . 
Mr President , I would like to extend a warm thank you to the rapporteur for his report . 
I am pleased that I can address him now in Dutch , now that Mr Van den Berg has just done so . 
otherwise I probably would have felt slightly guilty about this . 
I would like to say that this report represents a huge improvement , also with its amendments . 
I am from the Social Committee and rapporteurs on our committee are always proud to receive 100 amendments because then they know that they have tabled an interesting topic . 
I think that this is also the case here , but I think it would be a bit over the top to spend too much time talking about these 100 amendments . 
I would also point out that our coordinator on the Budgetary Control Committee is Mr Pomés Ruiz , who is Spanish and has hence made a major contribution to this debate from a Spanish perspective . 
Mr President , one of the key aspects which have been mentioned is , to my mind , the rapporteur ' s proposal for the standing committee on standards in public administration . 
a very important proposal indeed . 
I am only very surprised that the Socialist group would like to subordinate this proposal to one tabled by Mrs Morgan , because she wants to scrap it altogether . 
I cannot fully grasp the underlying rationale . 
on the one hand , we receive all kinds of words of praise for the rapporteur but , at the same time , Mrs Morgan wants to pursue a sort of scorched earth policy on this point and on other key points as well , as a result of which , in fact , the entire content of this report vanishes . 
I do not know whether this is to appease Mr Kinnock , but I happen to know Mr Kinnock . 
he is happy to hear what our demands are and is quite prepared to be flexible if he considers it necessary . 
in my opinion , such a far @-@ reaching scorched earth policy is really unnecessary . 
finally , the issue of officials . 
actually , I do not entirely share Mr Haarder ' s view . 
I do agree that the section on officials has , in fact , been completed totally inadequately . 
first of all , the importance of a public service in general is not at all emphasised . 
secondly , all kinds of proposals are nevertheless being mooted , and we have to ask ourselves whether these are terribly appropriate and whether they would lead to improvement . 
for example , we are currently looking into TAOs . this is a key point but , at the same time , we want to abolish temporary staff at the Commission . 
these two considerations are diametrically opposed to each other , and I really fail to grasp how such a proposal can end up on the table . 
Mr President , Mr van Hulten , your work is worthy of being qualified as enterprising , arduous and complex , and I believe this is important in a first report . 
please therefore accept what I am about to say as being criticism made in the spirit of honest debate , and I believe that in this way our debate here today will be richer . 
this report seems to me to be redundant , long @-@ winded , confused and lacking in accuracy in the terms used . 
perhaps ' redundant ' is the most serious epithet , and you are not responsible for this . it is the responsibility of this Parliament . 
that is to say , if this Parliament commissions a Committee of Experts - and I am not going to repeat what Mr Casaca has said , but I agree with him to a large extent - to analyse a problem , where is the sense in indulging in the medieval tradition of criticising the critics and so on , ad infinitum . 
clearly we are awaiting this reform from the Commission , we are awaiting the proposals which the Commission is going to make to us and this Parliament will have to express its opinion on them . 
meanwhile , we have to offer the Commission a vote of confidence . 
' long @-@ winded ' . 
I am not going to mention the length of this report . 
I do not know if it breaks the record for all the resolutions presented here , but , for this type of resolution it certainly does . 
I do not believe that there has ever been a resolution - and in this Parliament we certainly produce complex resolutions - which has had paragraphs of more than 16 lines without a single full stop . 
it is also ' confusing ' . 
I am not going to return to what has been said about the analysis of questions concerning Parliament . 
that should be the subject of another report and we will have to carry one out and consider that issue , but not in this report . 
and finally , Mr President , frankly , I am not going to give examples , but there are many cases in which legal language is used with an alarming lack of accuracy . 
therefore - in summary - I await , and many of us await , your report , Commissioner Kinnock , so that we can really express our opinion on it , which is the duty of this Parliament . 
Mr President , the scope and highly detailed nature of the proposals for necessary reform measures show just how important these reforms are . 
when one considers the events that have set these endeavours in motion though , it is only too clear as to why there is a need for them . 
hopes and expectations were raised higher still by the strong messages sent out by Commissioners Prodi and Kinnock in plenary and in the Committee on Budgetary Control . 
the concept of transparency stands out in the report . 
securing this is a major priority . 
the importance of smooth @-@ running , comprehensible work cannot possibly be emphasised enough . 
this is not just about bureaucratic reform , however ; rather , it is about showing good will towards the citizens . 
we must win back their faith in EU politics . 
the citizens demand rapid and open access to the institutions and call for EU provisions to be comprehensible to them . 
this is what enables them to understand what is going on . they want to see the politics of success and believe that this is how any politically mature citizen could expect to be served 
whether or not the reforms succeed depends , to a very large extent , on the Commission ' s own initiative . 
however , it annoyed me when I heard today that the Commission is now saying that it only wishes to discuss the interim report with Parliament on an informal basis . 
I believe , Mr Kinnock , that notwithstanding all the success achieved on a personal level , the Commission still has quite a lot to do to satisfy our justifiably high expectations . 
can I begin by stating for the record and for the enlightenment of Mrs Langenhagen that the decision for me not to address the full plenary tomorrow and therefore be available for formal responses on the report is not mine and not the Commission 's - it was the decision of this Parliament ! 
so if she has any lectures to offer they are best contained within this House . 
she knows me well enough to understand that at all stages in the five years in which we worked together in this House , there has never been a single occasion on which I have refused to account in full , formally and in detail for everything I have done . 
Mr President , may I begin by paying tribute to the painstaking and , from what I hear , the pains @-@ accepting work of Mr van Hulten in preparing his report . 
although new to this House he is relatively old in some respects , certainly in his familiarity with the Institutions as a former official - and I think that the value of that is shown by his ability to tackle the complex subject which is of critical importance , as several Members have said , to all of our Institutions . 
I thank him and I wish him a long and distinguished career as a representative . 
Mr President , as you will know , Mr van Hulten 's report on the second report of the Committee of Independent Experts is necessarily long and , since I want to make a comprehensive reply , particularly on the issues relating to financial management and control , I seek your indulgence . 
naturally I will not take up any more of the time of the House than is absolutely necessary . 
when this House considered the second report of the Committee of Experts last September , I pledged on behalf of the incoming Commission that the report would be treated as a fundamental ingredient in the Commission 's reform proposals . 
our efforts to completely honour that pledge will be evident to the House when consideration is given to the reform package that was adopted by the Commission today , well within the demanding timetable that we set for ourselves four months ago . 
I am sure that Mr Pomes Ruiz is encouraged by that . 
the great majority of the paper 's proposals are closely akin to those put by Mr van Hulten and that paper includes - I say to him and to Mr Staes - a very explicit timetable of actions to be undertaken in pursuit of reform . 
there is nothing therefore that is open @-@ ended or vague about the report which I have had the honour to compile . 
the considered view of this Parliament in the consultation period over the next four to five weeks will for obvious reasons be of great significance . 
I would say to Mr Elles that we are most definitely in listening mode . 
but he will appreciate - with his customary generosity I am sure - that for us to be able to listen to the response to what we are proposing , it is first necessary to transmit what we are proposing . 
hence the transmission . 
though time forbids me , Mr President , from commenting in this debate on each element in the resolution before the House , I readily give the assurance that the details will be treated as an important input into our reform proposals throughout this consultation and indeed to our work in other relevant areas . 
turning to the main themes of the resolution I offer the following observations . 
the need for transparency is rightly stressed , not least because greater transparency in the way in which the Commission operates will improve the efficiency and will also demystify what the Commission does . 
this is essential for an executive administration that must be accountable , not just to this House , but more generally to the European public . 
naturally , sensible safeguards are required to protect specially sensitive information , but the cases where these are needed should be kept to the minimum possible . 
I have repeatedly emphasised that , indeed not just as a Commissioner , but in 25 or 30 years of campaigning . 
that most certainly is the intention of the Commission . 
financial management and control is obviously a crucial area of reform . 
as the House knows and has repeatedly said , the scale and scope of the Union 's financial interventions have grown immensely in the past decade without a proportionate increase in staffing or an adjustment in procedures . 
several Members have made that point again in the course of today 's debate . 
we share the view , forcefully expressed by the Committee of Independent Experts , and repeated in this draft resolution that the time has come for a thorough overhaul of our rules and procedures . 
the means of doing that are set out in the reform strategy and the Commission will present its proposals for a radical recasting of the Financial Regulation in April . 
parliamentary support in pursuing that essential course for change will be absolutely vital . 
I share the view expressed by Mrs Theato that it would not be acceptable in any way at all for us to seek to operate new arrangements without a change in the law . 
change in the law is fundamental . 
there are preparations which can be made and they are specified and set out with the full reassurances in the reform strategy , but enactment of change in the legislation is obviously of fundamental importance to the operation of the new system . 
essentially - and with legal change - the Commission will systematically move away from the current centralised system of prior approval of each financial transaction by the Financial Controller and instead strengthen the internal control systems within spending departments so that Directors @-@ General are better equipped to take responsibility for decisions with an impact on the European Union budget . 
in addition , and to achieve better assurances than those provided under the present system , the new system of decentralised controls must be complemented by setting up an internal audit service - " the second key " as Herr Bösch said , established in a way that is closely consistent with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts . 
that service will open on 1 May this year . 
it will be headed by a professionally qualified member of the audit profession and its independence must and will be guaranteed through a new provision to be added in the financial regulation . 
the new service will report to me and it will be accompanied by an Audit Progress Board chaired by my colleague , Mrs Schreyer , who I am delighted to see in the Chamber this evening . 
as Budgets Commissioner , here responsibilities already include relations with the Court of Auditors . 
this Audit Progress Board will ensure effective and rigorous follow @-@ up to internal audits . 
I want to emphasise strongly that changing our control systems will definitely not mean relaxing them . 
the proposed change will make the systems more effective , both in terms of inputs and in terms of measured and accountable outcomes . 
I can also specifically assure the House that we are not going for what is sometimes called " a big bang approach " . 
financial control ' s ex ante visa for each spending department will only be relinquished as and when the internal control system in a department is shown to be fully adequate . 
I am somewhat surprised that paragraph 10 of the draft resolution does not appear to address the fundamental criticisms of the current centralised financial control function made in both reports of the Committee of Independent Experts . 
that committee was very clear about the need to abolish the centralised ex ante visa . 
it was clear too on the need to separate internal audit from financial control . 
in addition , I do not believe that paragraph 10 fully reflects the opinion of the Court of Auditors in 1997 . 
naturally the Court will be able to give its considered opinion on the proposed changes to the Financial Regulation but it is useful to recall Mr Karlsson ' s comments to this House last month . 
" the Commission 's internal control " he said " is not forceful enough in preventing incorrect operation . 
for instance , the Financial Controller granted a positive a priori visa in most of the cases of mismanagement or irregularities recently uncovered . 
at the same time , the internal audit function is carried out in an uncoordinated way by several bodies , notably the same Financial Controller , the Inspectorate General and by some units operating Directorates @-@ General . " 
the centralised ex ante approval system was doubtlessly originally designed to ensure carefulness but , over the years , it has had the perverse effect of reducing the extent to which managers feel responsible for their decisions . 
I do not believe that there is any real disagreement between us on this . 
I take it from paragraph 10 that the underlying preoccupation of honourable Members is that there should be a carefully managed transition . 
that will most certainly be the character of the change as honourable Members will see when they read the reform strategy document . 
our objective , the committee ' s objective , the Court of Auditors ' objective is not to abolish financial control , it is to get rid of and improve upon centralised financial control . 
before leaving this area I would add that we agree with the rapporteur that the existing internal audit function must be maintained pending the establishment of the new independent internal audit service in a matter of months . 
turning quickly to the section of the resolution on fighting fraud , corruption , mismanagement and nepotism : the major new proposal of the report concerns reporting by Commission officials of perceived wrong @-@ doing . 
as I made clear in the hearings last September and on other occasions , we are at one in the belief that there is value in defining the best possible mechanisms for this purpose although obviously we all hope that it will rarely be needed . 
since June of last year , the OLAF regulation has given better guidance to staff about reporting possible irregularities . 
we propose to complement those provisions by defining the rights and obligations for officials to report suspected wrong @-@ doing through internal channels but not exclusively within the same hierarchical line . 
the possibility of using specified external channels will also be addressed . 
we are seeking to implement best practice . 
serious response to reports , confidentiality at early stages and career protection will be assured for people who report wrong @-@ doing in good faith and in ways that do not compromise investigations by untimely disclosure . 
as a corollary , there will be safeguards for officials who are the subject of false allegations . 
a communication later this year will give full details . 
I do not think Parliament will be disappointed by what we will propose . 
I am persuaded , however , by the suggestion in paragraph 34 of the report on using external bodies to enforce existing provisions on financial liability . 
we already plan to reform the existing disciplinary procedures to ensure thoroughness , fairness , consistency and professionalism . 
and we will propose the establishment of an interinstitutional Disciplinary Board - something else on which we will need the support and understanding of Parliament . 
a communication in June will set out the full proposal for change . 
standards in public life is the next main section of the report before the House . 
with the introduction of a series of codes of conduct the current Commission has begun to develop an explicit ethical framework . 
this will be taken a step further with a proposal in June for an interinstitutional agreement on a committee on standards in public life . that is in line with the draft resolution . 
an important role for the committee will be to give advice on ethics and standards and to supervise common and separate codes of conduct for the institutions . 
I welcome Parliament 's support for that . 
we are also currently examining how we can most effectively implement the proposal for a classification system for documents , made in paragraph 50 of Mr van Hulten 's report . 
the draft resolution rightly recalls the Commission 's accountability to this Parliament . 
President Prodi and Vice @-@ President de Palacio and other colleagues have demonstrated the Commission 's practical commitment to that . 
I hope that we will soon be able to agree a code of conduct on relations between our institutions which will include updated rules on access to documents . 
the point was very properly raised by Mr Elles and referred to by Mrs Thors . 
I am sure they are aware that in mid @-@ December we officially received the draft framework agreement with Parliament . 
we are now waiting for Parliament to decide when it wishes to begin negotiations on the text . 
we are very happy to proceed as rapidly as possible . 
the report rightly emphasises the central importance that human resources policy must have in reform . 
I am glad to say to Mr van Hulten and Mr Haarder that the detailed recommendations on recruitment , training , appraisal and the appointment to management positions are very much in line with our own thinking and our own proposals . 
I also want to move towards a linear career system because the current category system is no longer adapted to the needs of our institutions . 
it certainly blocks the advance and mobility of people with proven capabilities . 
Members , who , in the course of this debate , have properly praised Commission officials , who in the great majority and typically are of high integrity , hard @-@ working and of great capability , are absolutely right in the comments that they have made . 
while the reform strategy White Paper will clearly outline our ideas on these and other points , detail and precision are obviously essential . 
a series of communications will therefore follow in the coming months . 
each of them will be available for reflection and response by this House . 
it is , meanwhile , very obvious that we will need to work closely with Parliament , as an institution , on central matters of common interest , notably pay and pensions and the revision of the staff regulations . 
on this latter point we are reflecting on whether it might be useful to adopt a framework regulation which makes common provision on leading issues like pay , conditions , staff representation rights and so on , but enables the different institutions to operate implementing rules on other matters . 
the early thoughts of Parliament on this consultative idea would be especially welcome . 
I conclude by referring to paragraph 15 of the resolution before the House relating to the resource requirements of our policies for change . 
that is most certainly relevant . 
we are sure that there will be an important " reform dividend " as the modernisation measures begin to foster increased efficiency and better management in the use of resources . 
it is very clear , however , that parts of the Commission services are already very stretched . 
Parliament has frequently made that point . 
secondly , it is also clear that reform will require some new investment in training for skills and in technology . 
thirdly , it is very clear that increased preparations for enlargement must be undertaken . 
they are already having implications for resource availability . 
it is also clear that if we take on new tasks - which we will surely be asked to do by the Council and Parliament - we will have to identify so @-@ called " negative priorities " and drop those negative priorities in order to create spare capacity . 
a central feature of the reform will therefore be a more rigorous process for tying the process of priority @-@ setting into resource allocation under a system of activity @-@ based management . 
I want to emphasise , however , that whilst internal discipline on priority @-@ setting will certainly be introduced by the Commission , it can only be fully effective if Parliament and the Council share it and take an equally stringent attitude to the demands made on the Commission . 
the Commission therefore welcomes paragraph 15 of Mr van Hulten 's report . 
I conclude , Mr President , by thanking the House for its attention during an unavoidably lengthy speech and by expressing sincere gratitude to the rapporteur , to the Committee on Budgetary Control and to the other committees which gave their opinions . 
we look forward to working closely with this House on the finalisation of the reform strategy package and then , most important of all , working together with this House on its implementation continually through the years that will be required on such complexities . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. 
( the sitting was closed at 11.15 p.m. ) 
Middle East peace process ( continuation ) 
the next item is the continuation of the Council and Commission statements on the Middle East peace process . 
I am very grateful to the President of the Council for the statement this morning on the Middle East at the beginning of this debate and for hearing some of Minister Gama ' s insights , as he arrived hot @-@ foot from the region . 
my only regret is that my own commitment to open the European Reconstruction Agency on Monday meant that I could not take part myself in that trip to the Middle East , even though , as I mentioned earlier in the day - which is another story - events conspired to maroon me at Munich airport rather than transport me to Thessaloniki . 
such is life . 
I hope that honourable Members will excuse me if I am not able to stay to the end of the debate as I would , in all normal circumstances , wish to do . 
the debate was fixed for this morning and on that basis I had arranged to see visitors from the Balkans this evening . 
so I hope I can count on the understanding of the House on this occasion . 
it is not something , I assure you , which I would wish to make a practice of . 
like honourable Members , I welcome the United States ' efforts that have relaunched the Syrian / Israeli negotiations , despite the Syrian decision that they needed more time before resuming the talks that were scheduled to start again today . 
there is reasonable hope that a basis for a peace agreement can be built in the near future . 
I also hope that progress in the Syrian track will pave the way for an early resumption of Lebanese / Israeli talks which could then advance in parallel towards an overall deal on Israel 's relations with its northern neighbours . 
at the same time we must not lose sight of the Palestinian track . 
the situation of the Palestinians has always been the core issue of the conflict . 
a fair and , indeed , generous deal with them remains the key to lasting peace in the Middle East . 
Israelis and Palestinians have made substantial progress in implementing the Sharm el @-@ Sheikh Memorandum . 
although there has been some slippage , I trust that the remaining Israeli troop redeployments will materialise soon . 
similarly , despite the indication the day before yesterday that the timetable for the Framework Agreement on permanent status has been pushed beyond the mid @-@ February deadline , I very much hope that the much more important September deadline for the final agreement on permanent status will be reached . 
I was reassured that this was also the view of Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat , when they met on Monday . 
honourable Members will know that one particular concern of ours has been that there should be a resumption of progress on the multilateral track . 
this is far from straightforward but we will do what we can to make this possible , in close liaison with the US and Russian co @-@ sponsors as well as the regional parties . 
we are charged with particular responsibility for the promotion of regional economic development . 
the beginning of the talks with Syria paved the way for a convening of the multilateral steering group in Moscow at the end of the month . 
I look forward to attending that meeting and hope that at last we can begin to push things forward again . 
the European Union has an important role to play in the peace process , as all sides - Palestinians , Israelis , their Arab neighbours and the United States - have acknowledged . 
nor is our role confined to that of banker . 
we must be prepared to act swiftly to support the consolidation of peace in the region . 
but we should not kid ourselves : a comprehensive Middle East peace deal comes with a hefty price tag . 
the Commission is already considering the implications for the European Union of the recent encouraging developments . 
we intend to share our more detailed thoughts on the matter with Parliament and Council soon . 
but let me remind honourable Members that the European Union is no slouch when it comes to financial support for the peace process . 
we are the largest of all donors to the Palestinians . 
we have also offered very substantial support to Jordan , Lebanon , Syria and Egypt . 
with the Israelis we have established closer cooperation in a number of areas of particular interest to them . 
the Community contribution of over EUR 600 million in grants and loans between 1994 and 1998 effectively underpinned the Palestinian authority and contributed substantially towards the reconstruction of the deteriorated physical infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza . 
European Union Member States together contributed another EUR 860 million during that crucial period . 
in this context , let me applaud the important steps that the Palestinian authority has recently taken to improve budgetary transparency . 
President Arafat will be meeting the Council of Ministers next week . 
this will be a good opportunity to address the need to take similarly courageous steps to improve the Palestinian administration and to bolster the rule of law . 
the Commission is actively involved in those efforts . 
the Commission has also stepped up its planned support for regional cooperation projects between Israelis and Arabs . 
we committed more than EUR 20 million for such projects last year . 
this package included renewed assistance for people @-@ to @-@ people activities and cross @-@ border cooperation where Israelis and Arabs meet on non @-@ governmental and expert levels . 
Members will recall that the European Union is the largest financial donor to the overall efforts in bringing reconciliation to the people of the Middle East . 
a number of issues naturally emerge as additional potential targets of Community support in the coming phase of the peace process - among them , helping to consolidate a Golan settlement both in terms of contributing to security arrangements and supporting demining and the rebuilding of communities in the Golan Heights . 
Syrian economic development will need assistance for the transition from a wartime to a peace economy . 
reconstruction and rehabilitation of southern Lebanon , the only Middle Eastern area with an ongoing military conflict , will also demand considerable efforts . 
we also need to continue our support for economic reform and social development in Lebanon as a whole . 
a solution is needed to the Palestinian refugee problem - these are the largest group of refugees in the world , numbering nearly 5 million people - an indication of the enormous challenges ahead . 
we must support initiatives increasing the availability and improving the distribution and management of the region 's very scarce water resources . 
lastly , but maybe most importantly , we are encouraging closer regional cooperation in a number of areas , bringing all the countries concerned together in a joint endeavour to address their common problems . 
it is already apparent that the financial resources currently available for Community assistance to this part of the world will not be sufficient for the magnitude of support that will be required in the event of permanent peace . 
I want to underline that point . 
I wish insistently to remind the Council and , should it be necessary , Parliament , that we should not continue to allow a gap to develop between our rhetoric and what we are actually capable of doing . 
I repeat that a change in the politics of the Middle East will require a gear change in the support that we shall be asked and expected to provide . 
I hope I can add that we will want to provide that . 
we have made progress in recent months and weeks , as Mr Gama mentioned earlier . 
but it is inevitably going to be a tough process with difficulties and disappointments on the way . 
we will do all we can to help the process to a successful conclusion and to meet the obligations and challenges that will be created by that outcome . 
lastly , I will repeat for some who have entered the Chamber in the last few minutes , what I said at the outset of my remarks : that I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate , largely as a result of having assumed that the debate was taking place this morning and having fixed a meeting on the Balkans for this evening . 
I hope the House will understand that . 
Mr President , Commissioner Patten has our understanding . 
I would like to tell him that communications with Madrid are usually more fluid and , therefore , I hope to see him there soon . 
the statements we have heard today on the Middle East peace process are very opportune at the moment because of the hurried tour which Minister Gama - whose absence from this debate I also regret - has made of the region , accompanied by other Council representatives . 
the tone of the news in the media on the recent events in the area could lead us to take a pessimistic view of the situation . 
I honestly believe that an evaluation of this type would not be in accordance with the reality of that situation . 
in this sense , I share Commissioner Patten ' s positive attitude . 
let me explain : it is true that the Israeli Government has delayed the third hand @-@ over of West Bank territory to the Palestinian authorities . 
this is naturally on the condition that the delay does not exceed three weeks , as Prime Minister Barak has promised . 
on the other hand , the decision to delay the second round of talks , initiated in Shepherdstown by the Syrian Arab Republic , is undoubtedly significant , but I am convinced that the hopes which were raised on 3 January in that town will not be dashed . 
Mr President , the fact that the different groups in this Parliament are tabling a motion for a resolution , in this ever controversial debate , which is the result of a broad consensus , seems to me to demonstrate the clear political will to decisively support open peace processes . 
I would therefore like , equally firmly , to express our rejection of the use of violence to resolve differences , which are still no doubt profound , between the parties . 
in my judgement , this constitutes a guarantee to both sides , both from a political and a financial point of view , of the commitment they can expect from the European Union in terms of its contribution to the cost of the peace which we all long for . 
it is clear to everyone that this is essential to guaranteeing security in the area and to cooperating in the development which is needed to heal the serious social differences which exist . 
but this also serves to make a claim , on the part of the European Union , for a degree of political participation in the process which is consistent with its economic contribution - we do not have aspirations to be bankers - and which will be suitably visible to the public . 
there is absolutely no doubt that the forthcoming trip by the President of the European Parliament to the region will contribute to this . 
Mr President , I want to thank Commissioner Patten for his detailed account . 
I should like to say that I agree with the tone which Galeote Quecedo ' s speech set here . 
we in Parliament strongly support the Middle East peace process . 
it is , of course , a peace process which is finally under way . 
if we think of how the process was looking a year ago , the difference between then and now is like that between night and day , despite difficulties and delays . 
I want to emphasise four points . 
first of all , the Sharm el @-@ Sheikh Agreement contains , as everyone knows , a concrete timetable for the implementation of Israel ' s commitments . this applies both to the interim agreement and to the Hebron and Wye Agreements . 
while the negotiations on the final peace settlement have begun , I think it is important to keep the two processes apart . 
a lack of progress in the final status negotiations should not jeopardise implementation of the three above @-@ mentioned interim agreements . 
what we need to look out for in this context is how matters develop in connection with the harbours in Gaza , the northern transit route between Gaza and the West Bank , further releases of political prisoners and implementation of the financial commitments . 
the second point relates to Syria . 
there , the border question is obviously central . 
how negotiations are proceeding there , we still do not know . 
what is important , however , is that they have begun . 
an important question in this context is the future distribution of water . 
as things are at present , the Golan Heights account for between a third and a sixth of Israel 's water supply . 
the third aspect is the peace negotiations in Syria which are closely linked to the issue of Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon . 
according to UNIFIL , there are now concrete signs that Israel is preparing to withdraw , which is something we welcome . 
there too , of course , outstanding matters in dispute are the water problem and the situation of the Lebanese Palestinian refugees . 
my last point concerns the future Palestinian State . 
this may be proclaimed in the course of this year , with or without Israel ' s support . 
the Barak government has given to understand that it intends to conclude a peace agreement with a state as the other party . 
even if negotiations are not completed by September of this year , there is nothing in the relevant treaties to prevent a Palestinian state from being proclaimed after that date . 
in this context , it is important for those of us who support the idea of a Palestinian state that the latter should be as Commissioner Patten said , namely a state subject to public control , and that it should be a democratic state . 
this is something to which we all want to contribute . 
Mr President , I would like to refer , firstly and above all , to the joint resolution which will be laid down to round off this debate . my Group has made a contribution to this resolution and , needless to say , approves of it . 
more specifically , however , I would like to express our delight at the fact that , after such a long time , Israel and Syria are on speaking terms again to resolve their differences of opinion . 
the recent negotiations are already an important step towards a permanent peace in the Middle East . 
it is , therefore , regrettable that these peace talks have been suspended for the time being . 
indeed , both parties will need to make huge efforts . 
lasting peace in the region can only be achieved by means of an agreement which guarantees the security of the Israeli borders , as well as Syria ' s integrity . 
it is also necessary to initiate permanent diplomatic relations and to establish constant dialogue . 
in addition to the bilateral meetings with Syria , I hope that Israel will also enter into negotiations with Lebanon within the foreseeable future and that , in the framework of economic and regional cooperation , a multilateral approach will appear possible . 
nevertheless , it is still regrettable that the European Union , one of the most important financial donors , is still unable to play a major political role in the peace process . 
this peace process in the Middle East is one of the priorities of the European Union ' s common foreign and security policy . 
this is where Mr Solana , the High Representative to the Council , could come into his own . 
the Commission and Member States also have to be encouraged to support projects which can help develop understanding and partnership between the different nations in the region . 
I should also draw your attention to the significance of the Barcelona process which should have a beneficial impact on regional cooperation . 
in this respect , we support Libya ' s participation , provided that it recognises human rights , renounces support for terrorists and fully supports the peace process . 
there are still , needless to say , many unresolved problems and unanswered questions , also involving the Palestinians . 
everyone knows that the peace process is a protracted and difficult affair but we are convinced that , with the necessary trust , perseverance and indispensable political will , our common goal , namely a peaceful and prosperous Middle East , will be achieved . 
Mr President , it is pleasing that , despite certain delays and problems , the peace negotiations are going on both between Israel and Palestine and between Israel and Syria . 
the moment of truth is approaching . 
is Israel prepared to comply with the UN ' s resolutions and , in exchange for peace and security , hand back the Arab areas which were conquered in 1967 ? 
will Israel let Palestinian refugees return or be given compensation ? 
will Israel share Jerusalem and the water of the River Jordan ? 
will a free Palestine be a truly democratic state and , therefore , reliable as a partner in peace ? 
will Syria fully accept Israel ' s existence and introduce democracy and the rule of law ? 
the fact that the main responsibility for the peace process lies with the occupying country , Israel , does not prevent the Arab partners from also having a considerable share of the responsibility . 
peace in the Middle East concerns us all , however . 
it is therefore good that the EU should act as a godparent to the Palestinian state . 
against this background , I want to conclude with a remarkable story from Sweden where an international Intergovernmental Conference on Hitler ' s extermination of the Jews is being held , which is obviously a welcome initiative . 
of 47 states invited from all corners of the world , not one of them , however , is an Arab state included in the EU ' s Barcelona process . 
this has been interpreted as indicating that the Arab attitude towards Israel should be regarded by Europeans as being similar to the Nazis ' anti @-@ Semitism , which of course is completely incorrect . 
the Arab world ' s criticism of Israel has been founded upon the same sort of anti @-@ colonialism as , for example , Algeria ' s fight for freedom against France . 
but today , Egypt , Jordan and Palestine have peace treaties with Israel . 
I therefore wonder whether Commissioner Patten does not agree with me that it would have been only right and proper to have invited at least one Arab state to the holocaust conference in Stockholm . 
Mr President , I would like to thank Commissioner Patten very much for the awareness he has demonstrated of the difficulties inherent in the peace process and the challenge that the European Union is taking on to bring it to completion . 
it is time to end the era which began with the Balfour declaration in 1917 and the Arab @-@ Israeli war of 1948 . it is time there were secure borders and political , social and economic rights in every country in this region , and that human rights were recognised and upheld in Syria , Palestine , Israel and everywhere else . 
this is an exercise in sovereignty , and in democracy for each population and every individual , but to this end it is vital for all parties in the conflict to have the courage to strive for peace and rights , and to recognise the other as its partner and not as its subject to whom concessions must be given . 
I refer principally to the Palestine @-@ Israel question , but the same also applies to the territories which have been occupied in the Golan since 1967 and in southern Lebanon since 1982 . 
Israel has to accept its responsibilities , withdraw from the occupied territories and share its water resources but , at the same time , it has to be sure that it will be safe and able to live in peace in terms of economic and political relations with all the countries in the area . 
however , Israel is not the only country concerned with security . 
trees have been uprooted , houses are still being demolished and , above all , water supplies have been reduced or refused , especially in East Jerusalem , while the settlements continue and are growing constantly . 
nevertheless , there is no doubt that with the election of the new government , positive steps have been taken : negotiations , at least , have resumed . but in the Middle East , there can be no stable and lasting peace if the Palestinians do not have their own state , if they cannot move freely within their own territory . 
all the international community has to do is implement Resolutions 332 , 248 , 245 and 194 . 
we are concerned by the deferment of the building of relations with Syria , as well as Mr Barak ' s decision to postpone the withdrawal of the Israeli army and the Sharm el ­ -Sheikh agreements . 
we feel it is extremely important for the European Union to play a political role in negotiations which matches its economic aid . 
we cannot be content with a role backstage . we must be leading protagonists while staying off a collision course with the United States , as Minister Gama said . 
Mr President , firstly my thanks and appreciation to Commissioner Patten for his comments here today , particularly in relation to the role of the European Union in the peace process , and for reaffirming that our role is not only that of " banker " for the entire operation . 
I was deeply disappointed at the news this week that the peace talks between Israel and Syria had been suspended . 
I very much hope that a compromise can be reached to overcome this so that the peace negotiations can be resumed at a very early date . 
nevertheless , we cannot deny that some positive political progress has been made in the Middle East of late . 
the fact that the Syrian Foreign Minister and the Israeli Prime Minister were recently sitting around the same table in America for the first time in their respective histories is an indication that old hatreds and animosities can be overcome . 
political leaders must show real courage to put in place a framework which can lead to an overall peace settlement within the Middle East . 
I know that if agreement can be reached between Syria and Israel , the Israeli Prime Minister will still face real opposition to any new agreement with Syria in any future referendum . 
the settlers at the Golan Heights will demand to be compensated and there will have to be guarantees of security . 
if Syria would be willing to offer concessions on the security question then the prospects of a successful resolution to the Israel / Syria question might be promising . 
on the issue of Palestine , I recognise that there are still some difficulties with regard to the implementation of some aspects of the Wye Agreement . 
the key problem areas at the moment include the difficulties of redeployment , as well as the transfer of territories . the low level of releases of Palestinian prisoners and the fact that the Israeli Government appears to intend halting implementation of building permits already granted , as well as not approving new ones , pose further obstacles . 
these issues have clearly been holding up progress on the permanent status negotiations , although , I believe , these talks will not be held up indefinitely . 
at present , the main difficulty in approaching the negotiations seems to be that the Palestinians are insisting that the border issue must be agreed upon first , while the Israeli Government says that it should be settled only if a solution is reached on the issue of settlements and security . 
currently , both sides seem to have accepted that nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed . 
in conclusion , while other countries in the Middle East have had reservations about the overall direction of the peace process , now that the Syrian Government has been brought into the peace process , Egypt and other countries in the region are willing to move forward . 
I sincerely hope that , in the interests of improving the safety and quality of life of the people living in the Middle East , all the key protagonists will move forward quickly , in the very near future , so as to reach an overall agreement on all the key matters which need to be resolved . 
Mr President , the various motions for resolutions tabled in Parliament more or less represent the situation in the Middle East . 
there are those who are in favour of new agreements between Israel and Syria , but only a few focus on the real problem at the heart of the Middle East issue . 
indeed , the time has come to resolve a central problem for global stability . 
the time has come for Israel to fulfil its promises of old and definitively withdraw from the occupied territories , at last recognising once and for all the authority of Palestine , whose resumed diplomatic activity will have a secure future while it is under the wise leadership of Yasser Arafat . 
it is equally important not to lose sight of the Iraq question , which no one discusses anymore , thereby relegating the problems of millions of women , elderly people and children , the victims of an embargo as arrogant as it is wicked , to oblivion . 
I do not know what Syria and Israel will want or be able to do in reality , but I do know that our institution can do a lot and it is time that it attached the same importance to peoples ' lives as it does to the ballasts of the cold , colourless , artificial neon bulbs in our lamps , which can illuminate houses but not the world in the third millennium . 
Mr President , the truth is that the news of the indefinite suspension or delay of the talks between Syria and Israel is not good news , but nor is it good news that the day before yesterday there was another bomb attack which injured 16 people . 
the suspension of the talks between Syria and Israel is not the only delay affecting the peace process in the Middle East . 
the application of the framework agreement between the Palestinian authorities and Israel is also suspended at the moment . 
after the talks which took place the day before yesterday between the Israeli Prime Minister and the Leader of the Palestinian Authority , the Israeli Prime Minister requested a delay of two months as from 13 February , the deadline for the implementation of the framework agreement on the situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip . 
what can the European Union do in these circumstances ? 
unfortunately , very little . 
it naturally has to support these negotiations , sponsored by the United States ; contacts have to be increased ; the presence of the European Union envoy , Ambassador Moratinos , who has fulfilled his mission with great diligence and efficiency , within the powers of the European Union , is positive . 
but none of this hides the fact that there is a certain sense of impotence , because when the negotiators from each side fly back to the United States this weekend , we will have to remember that , for every 100 dollars spent on the peace process in the region , 60 are contributed by the European Union . 
when we consider that a conference will soon be held in Moscow , it becomes clear that the European Union ' s presence in this peace process is somewhat pitiful . 
I would like to insist to the Portuguese Presidency that we must play a greater role , that it is time to take over and to secure greater participation for the European Union in this process . 
I hope that the forthcoming visit by the President of the European Parliament to the region , as well as the presidents of the relevant interparliamentary delegations , will begin an era of greater initiative and a greater presence for the European Union in this complicated and difficult peace process . 
Mr President , Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , Commissioner Patten , I should like to thank you for your statements , especially Commissioner Patten , whose analysis I fully share and I shall not , therefore , repeat any of his ideas . 
I should just like to make three comments which Commissioner Patten will perhaps see as similar but which , for various reasons , a Member can formulate more openly . 
first , I believe that we can welcome the agreement between Israel and the Palestinian authorities . 
but we have enough agreements now : Oslo , Wye Plantation , Sharm el @-@ Sheikh . 
we have enough agreements ; they just need to be implemented . 
however , in this regard I share Mr Salafranca ' s scepticism when he says that there has been bad news from Israel this week , namely that the Sharm el @-@ Sheikh Memorandum cannot be implemented within the set timeframe . 
my second point concerns the resumption of negotiations between Syria and Israel . 
I consider this to be very encouraging news . 
but we have also learned this week that Mr Barak will not be travelling to Washington and that the negotiations cannot therefore be continued . 
I should like to make it quite clear : if the Golan Heights are returned to Syria , the problem in this region will be solved . 
on the question of the referendum which various Members have referred to : we must consider if a referendum always needs to be held in order to honour obligations under international law and under the law of nations . 
in Germany , there would probably be dancing in the streets if we were to say that we were holding a referendum on payments to the European Union and we shall pay if the German people are prepared to pay . 
that would be a similar situation . 
my third and last point concerns the role of the European Union . 
I should really like to stress the excellent role which Mr Moratinos ' special mission has played in the region and the funding which we have provided there , Commissioner Patten . 
you know that you will always have our support here in Parliament , and that includes your proposal , and we shall be behind you when the time comes to finance it . 
but we must also play a political role and Mr Moratinos cannot play that role in this region on his own ; the Presidency of the Council must take action , the EU High Representative for common foreign and security policy must travel to the region and we must do as the Russians did and invite the protagonists of the peace process ourselves . 
then we will have played the role which is commensurate with our participation and our contribution . 
Mr President , Commissioner Patten , the recent peace talks begun in the USA between Israel and Syria mark a turning point in the history of the Middle East . it has taken fifty years to reach this point , which will involve some particularly difficult negotiations . 
there will be no meeting today in Shepherdstown but we must hope , as Mr Patten said just now , that this postponement of the negotiations due to Syrian requirements will only represent one more step on the road to a peace agreement which will change the face of the Middle East . 
this hope is contained in our motion for a resolution . we hope for a fair and balanced agreement based on respect for sovereignties and the right to live securely within safe and recognised borders . 
all the foreign troops , including therefore the Syrian forces , must withdraw from Lebanon in accordance with Resolution 520 of the United Nations Security Council . 
dare we hope for an Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon by July 2000 , the date promised by Ehud Barak ? 
dare we hope for a dual peace agreement between Israel and its neighbours to the north ? 
we really hope and believe so . 
never have the parties been so determined . 
one fundamental point to be stressed is the balance which must be expressed in the message from Europe and which must exist between the people . there must also be a political balance between the participants in the negotiations . 
following the attack in Hadera on Monday , we must repeat our condemnation of any form of terrorism . 
in terms of balance , or should I say imbalance , I must add that it is to be regretted that Europe is still playing a minor political role in resolving this conflict . 
at midday , Mr Gama referred to the financial and commercial support provided by Europe to the region . 
despite everything , we are being forced to recognise that the resumption of the peace process is largely due to the work of Washington . 
like other Arab countries before them , the Syrians chose the Americans to sponsor the negotiations . 
this was the choice also made by Israel where Europe suffers from a partisan public image , and this is a fact , not a judgement . 
this is now the opportunity to reiterate to Mr Patten , Mr Solana and Mr Moratinos how much we are relying on their efforts to include Europe in the search for a peaceful solution to the conflict . 
although it is difficult for Europe to speak with one voice about the peace process , it can and must speak in the same spirit of confidence and solidarity . 
the next item is questions to the Council ( B5 @-@ 0040 / 99 ) and the Commission ( B5 @-@ 0041 / 99 ) , on behalf of the Committee on Citizens ' Freedoms and Rights , Justice and Home Affairs , on the 1999 annual debate on the area of freedom , security and justice ( Article 39 of the TEU ) . 
Mr President , 1999 was the year of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam , of the communitisation of the Schengen Agreement and of the Extraordinary Tampere Council . 
these have been the most important moments in the Council ' s expression of its political will to establish an area of freedom , security and justice in the European Union . 
the Council has decided to draw up a charter of citizens ' rights - and we rejoice in this ; it has decided to implement Article 13 of the Treaty , combating all forms of discrimination and xenophobia , and it has decided to approximate the laws on conditions for admission and residence , as well as guaranteeing residents treatment which is fair and on an equal footing with the citizens of the Union . 
it has also reached a political agreement - and we congratulate them on this - on the initial proposals for civil cooperation . 
this has been the year in which policies on justice and home affairs have been provided with a Community framework . 
they have been put into the hands of a single Commissioner , Mr Antonio Vitorino , and we congratulate them on this as well . 
furthermore , they have taken on the task of creating a " scoreboard " to verify the progress made in this area at Community level , but also - and this seems to me to be important - at the level of the Member States . 
we are pleased about this and we congratulate the Council on these decisions , despite the fact that , for this House , the Treaty of Amsterdam included one disappointment : that of delaying , for five years , our role , our ability to participate actively , to democratically control this area of freedom , security and justice , as well as the role taken in it by the Court of Justice . 
however , if , on verifying the progress made during 1999 , which is within the competence of this Parliament in accordance with the Treaty , we leave behind the stage of great declarations and look at the decisions actually taken and carried out , the scene looks considerably darker , Mr President . 
it is as if the Council had more than one face and two hands and what one signs up to , the other begrudges . 
despite all the commitments made at the highest level , the Council did not manage to take the decisions which it had envisaged . 
programmes multiply and overlap and there is no way of ascertaining levels of implementation and effectiveness or , at least , this Parliament is unable to do so . 
we have presented the Council with a series of questions and I know that it is the will of the Portuguese Presidency to answer each and every one of them . 
we hope that this presidency will mark the beginning of a change of attitude on the part of the Council towards this Parliament . 
I said that there was no consistency between the decisions taken by the Council and the policies actually carried out . 
there are doubts in my Group and doubts also persist in this House , for example , about something which should be good news : the incorporation of the Schengen Agreement into the Community framework . 
Schengen has been incorporated , as we said earlier , into the acquis , but it has been done with very little transparency . 
not a single piece of information , nor a single consultation , has been addressed to Parliament during this process ; neither on the association of the United Kingdom , nor on the incorporation of Greece , nor on the negotiations with Norway and Iceland . 
the same is true with regard to immigration policy . 
we have amused ourselves with a pile of reports , but we have no idea what has happened to these initiatives ; they have disappeared . 
we hope that 2000 will be the year for action , in the same way that 1999 was the year for expectations . 
we hope that the Council will also make an effort to subject itself to the control of this Parliament . 
the Council has decided that justice and home affairs policy must form part of the structure of the Union . 
the Council can act in accordance with Parliament ' s decisions , or it can continue to miserably begrudge its association with the other institutions in this vitally important project . 
if it chooses the second approach , it must be aware that this presents risks and that it will weaken the basis on which the area of freedom , security and justice is built . 
alternatively , it could accept the offer of an agreement amongst the institutions , in order to move forward in another way . 
fulfil your obligations to Parliament in a generous spirit , thus preparing for the future . 
provide the Commission with the necessary resources and recognition essential for it to carry out its work and for it to verify the real progress made at Community level and at the level of the Member States , and we will be - and the Council will be - able to deal with the decisions made at Tampere and move towards a Union which is freer , more just and more secure . 
Madam President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , it is rather moving for me to return to this House in my capacity as a Member of the Council . 
so it is with some pride and satisfaction that I find myself here and able to meet up again with some of my colleagues from those days who are still in this House . 
we gave an early signal when , before the start of the Portuguese Presidency , we met with the President and Vice @-@ Presidents of the Committee on Citizens ' Freedoms and Rights , Justice and Home Affairs in Brussels . 
we were able to invite the Chairman of that committee , Mr Watson , and some members of the committee to come to Lisbon , and to present our views concerning the role of the Portuguese Presidency in this area to them . 
and we gave an undertaking then that I now want to repeat formally : during all meetings of the Committee on Citizens ' Freedoms and Rights , Justice and Home Affairs , a representative of the Council , at political level , not an official but a political representative of the Council , from one of our ' cabinets ' , will always be involved in the work of the committee ... 
( applause ) 
and whenever the committee thinks fit , and the Chairman requests it , I myself or my colleague , the Minister for Justice , will come to Brussels to take part in the work of the meeting . 
we will accordingly give the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens ' Freedoms and Rights , Justice and Home Affairs the provisional agendas for the Council meetings in March and May , to allow contact to be established beforehand on the subjects to be discussed in the Council . we will do this today . 
turning to 1999 , we find ourselves in the special position of taking stock of the German and Finnish Presidencies . 
I would like to start by saying that , in addition to the replies that we shall be giving here to Mrs Terrón i Cusí , who has presented a proposal on behalf of her committee , we shall also be letting her have a written reply at the end of these discussions . 
furthermore , I would like to say that the Council believes that 1999 was an important year in the field of justice and home affairs . 
cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs was notable for the significant changes wrought by the Treaty of Amsterdam and , as a consequence , for the incorporation of Schengen into the Community framework . 
the German Presidency had an important task in this respect in achieving the transition from the Maastricht system to the Amsterdam system . 
then there was the launching of Europol soon after the start of the Finnish Presidency , on 1 July 1999 . 
there was also a third notable event : the Tampere Summit , a European Council devoted exclusively to justice and home affairs . 
the Tampere Summit was marked by a new spirit and by a determination to put the area of freedom , security and justice at the top of the political agenda and to keep it there . 
the point that the Portuguese Presidency wishes to reiterate here is that we intend to keep issues connected with the area of freedom , security and justice at the top of the presidency ' s political agenda . 
as regards our replies to Mrs Terrón i Cusí , I shall try to respond to her questions on home affairs , and my colleague will then address the points relating to justice . 
as you know , the Schengen acquis applies in full to ten countries , and in the course of 2000 , work will be done with a view to reaching a decision on the acquis coming into force in Denmark , Finland and Sweden , and also in Iceland and Norway . 
the Secretary @-@ General of the Council has published a collection of documents covering the entire Schengen acquis , pending publication in the Official Journal once all the translations are available . 
this collection is , at present , available in six languages and the remaining translations are nearing completion . 
another issue I wish to raise concerns programmes in the field of immigration and asylum and how they apply to the CEECs . 
in March 1998 , the Council adopted the Odysseus programme , a programme of training , exchanges and cooperation in the fields of policy on asylum , immigration and crossing of external borders . 
it applies to the fifteen Member States of the Union and provides for applicant countries , and possibly third countries also , to be associated with it . 
this programme covers the period 1998 to 2002 , and the reference amount for its implementation is EUR 12 million . 
applicant countries can be associated with projects selected by the management committee as long as this complies with the objectives of the programme . 
the financial envelope envisaged for 2000 is EUR 3 million . 
under the 1999 programme , the Commission received 80 applications for finance , totalling EUR 7.5 million , against a budget for 1999 of EUR 3 million . 
the Commission proposed support for 35 projects , of which 12 were for EUR 50 000 and 23 for amounts over EUR 50 000 . 
with regard to the OISIN programme , and I am now referring to the 1997 budget year , projects were adopted for seminars , training , exchanges of officials , research and studies , and operational actions . 
of 62 projects in all , seven included applicant countries . 
as regards SIS , the Schengen Information System , I am pleased to report that the Member States were very positive about its operation and use . 
the increase in the number of positive results demonstrates the efficiency of the system and there is a continuing increase in the number of reports . 
with a view to developing a customs information system , agreement was reached with the Commission on a system which will permit provisional application of the Convention on the Customs Information System as soon as a certain number of countries have ratified this convention . 
Mrs Terrón i Cusí also mentioned an interinstitutional agreement . 
I ought to comment on this final point once my colleague , the Minister for Justice , has spoken , but it is obvious that what I shall say is the result of an exchange of impressions within the Council , and in particular between the two of us . 
( sustained applause ) 
Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , as I do not have a background as a Member of the European Parliament , you will understand that it is even more moving for me to be here than it is for my colleague Fernando Gomes . 
we are all aware that , to this end , it is essential for the Council to approve , as quickly as possible , the scoreboard which Commissioner Vitorino has the remit of establishing . I must stress once again the Portuguese Presidency ' s earnest desire for political agreement to be reached on the scoreboard at the informal Council in Lisbon on 3 and 4 March . 
turning to the specific questions that Mrs Terrón i Cusí has put to us , I shall group them into three basic areas : the fight against organised crime , the operation of the Judicial Network , particularly as regards criminal matters , and questions on Europol . 
our relations with third countries represent another important aspect of the fight against organised crime . 
another area is EU involvement in the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and its various protocols , and in the conventions being prepared in the framework of the Council of Europe , in particular on cyber crime . 
as this is an issue which has become important in the justice and home affairs programme , the presidency believes that it is worthwhile , bearing in mind the principles of Chapter VI of the Treaty , to explore suitable means of providing the European Parliament with improved information on the progress and conclusion of these negotiations under the United Nations Convention . 
with regard to the Judicial Network , significant progress has been made , in particular the launch at the end of 1999 of the dedicated telecommunications system of the European Judicial Network , whilst the Multi @-@ disciplinary Group has developed a series of actions to implement the 1997 action plan . 
however , we must stress that it is vital for approval to be given as soon as possible to the strategy for the new millennium , so as to give a fresh impetus , while preserving continuity , to the work done under the previous action plan . 
still on judicial cooperation , considerable progress has been made on the legal protection of the euro , and the European Parliament is being consulted on a framework decision which is of fundamental strategic importance . 
we believe that if legal protection of the euro is to be credible , we must avoid having a multiplicity of instruments , and we should accordingly make a combined effort in March to approve a single instrument covering all necessary aspects , including those featuring in initiatives already presented by France and those whose adoption the Commission itself has called for . 
it is important in this field to implement measures relating to the mutual recognition of judicial decisions , and we believe that on the basis of work already done , it will be possible , at least in the field of seizure of assets , for measures to be adopted in the near future to provide for mutual recognition of judicial decisions . 
the French Presidency has passed an important working document to us which sets out various scenarios for addressing and resolving the issues of democratic control and judicial control of Europol . 
the Portuguese Presidency will shortly be presenting a working document on the Eurojust network , since although it is not obviously necessary for judicial control of Europol to be a matter for Eurojust , this option cannot be ruled out at present . 
for this reason , it is essential that the Council ' s debates on the future of Europol and Eurojust should be conducted in parallel , so that conclusions can be reached in parallel also . 
I believe that in this context , and in the context of the dialogue that the Council and Parliament will have to establish on the future of Europol and Eurojust , it will be possible for us to find an acceptable institutional solution to the relationship between the Council and Parliament with regard to Europol . 
we are familiar with Parliament ' s views and we know that Parliament is aware of the views of the Council ' s legal advisers . 
I believe that it will be possible to find a definitive solution to this question as part of the process of resolving the issue of democratic control of Europol , and that this solution will encourage and reinforce institutional cooperation between all parties involved . 
Mr President , having devoted itself over the last 40 years to establishing a common internal market , the House now faces the major new task of creating an area of freedom , security and justice , a task which we will only be able to master successfully if all the institutions of the Union work together towards this ambitious goal with mutual respect and consideration for each other ' s competence . 
Commissioner Vitorino , although I would describe cooperation with you as harmonious and profitable , words have often failed me in the past when faced with the conduct which the Council has demonstrated towards us . 
it looked , as Mr Schulz once aptly said in committee , as if the Council understood the area of freedom , security and justice to mean an area in which the Council has free rein , security from Parliament and the right to do and order as it will . 
Minister Gomes , I have , of course , heard what you have said and I hope that cooperation will clearly improve in this respect during the Portuguese Presidency . 
I should like to raise three points which for us , as Members of the PPE Group , must be focal points when such an area is created . 
first : a common asylum law must be created and the burden of absorbing refugees must be distributed . 
the Council must start by at long last ensuring that EURODAC is adopted in order to create the basic requirement for classifying asylum seekers . 
as far as a European asylum law is concerned , a start was in fact made at Vienna and Tampere . unfortunately , however , it has highlighted the difficulties rather than proposing solutions . 
I therefore call on the Council representatives to look beyond their national boundaries and bring about a uniform asylum procedure for the whole Union . 
similarly , it cannot be right for just a few Member States willing to provide help to bear the entire burden of refugee misery on our continent . 
agreement on burden sharing must therefore be at the top of the agenda . 
secondly : the introduction of a Europe @-@ wide fight against organised crime , including by Europol and Eurojust . 
the planned introduction of Eurojust is one of our significant successes from Tampere and must now be implemented forthwith . 
we welcome the fact that Europol has finally been able to start work . 
however , the Council should also bear in mind that , if we are to improve the effectiveness of the fight against crime , we do not only need to widen Europol ' s remit , as decided at Tampere ; we also need to increase the number of officers and extend its remit to operational activities . 
we are not just calling for more control , and more control over Europol ; our motto here is " Less is sometimes more ! " 
with most of Europol employees currently engaged in self @-@ control for the purposes of data protection laws and questions being asked by 15 national parliaments , we may have a great deal of control , but it is inefficient control . 
we want less confusing control and more parliamentary control by the European Parliament , without hampering the work of Europol . 
at the same time , we support the establishment of a European police academy as suggested in Tampere as a step in the right direction . 
thirdly : the extension to Parliament ' s rights in this context . 
if the establishment of such an area , in which the Union can also intervene in the basic rights of the citizens , is only decided by diplomats and bureaucrats , while the elected representatives of Europe are reduced to following developments like a rabbit watching a snake , then this area will not gain the acceptance of the citizens . 
there is therefore an urgent need to grant Parliament codecision rights in this respect and , as we have already said , to strengthen the principle of democratic control . 
we want an area of freedom , security and justice for the citizens of Europe , not against them . 
Mr President , I have nothing further to say to the Council . 
the previous speaker has quoted me from the last committee meeting and said it all ! 
why does the Council find it so hard to work with us in creating an area of freedom , security and justice ? 
I find this question more and more worrying . 
allow me to try and elucidate it a little from my point of view . 
the establishment of an area of freedom , security and justice hovers at the interface between the constituent elements of national sovereignty . 
the police and judicial policy are quite clearly elements of sovereignty , in other words sensitive political areas in the Member States , and shifting the interface of these and communitising these policies , i.e. delegating powers from the national capitals , from Lisbon , Berlin or Paris , to Brussels represents a transfer of power . 
of course it is very , very difficult to break away from the executive forms which have been handed down to us , even if we recognise that police cooperation is necessary ; we can only fight international crime at European level . 
so we have to draw our conclusions and say that we need legal and organisational communitisation of the instruments available . 
as a result , the governments which need to do this and which recognise that need , also realise that , in implementing this , they are taking away their own powers . 
then there is the European Parliament , which is also complicated . 
in the final analysis , however , we must find a way forward , because if we carry on as we have in the past , and with last year ' s experience , then what will happen is that the security debate and the debate about citizens ' rights will be marginalised in the national parliaments as a result of making it a half national , half European structure . 
it has not quite taken off in the European Parliament and the Council meets behind closed doors . 
if the establishment of an area of freedom , security and justice is kept secret , then we shall not win the citizens over to it . 
in other words , the stability of democracy is at stake if we discuss it . 
this is why I frequently get so worked up , but not over the Council of Ministers . 
generally , they too are elected Members of Parliament : Mr Gomes , Mr Costa , Commissioner Vitorino , in principle we are all in the same boat . 
however , I should like to make an appeal to the Council apparatchiks . 
the following principle applies : he who prepares decisions , in this case the Council apparatchiks , anticipates the decisions , which is why the Council apparatchiks should demonstrate more democratic spirit . 
I should just like to mention another aspect briefly because I do not have much time . 
scoreboard sounds like skateboard in German . 
I say therefore that we need a timetable which stipulates what must be implemented , when and by whom . 
this Vitorino plan is what we need : clear , precise projects with a clear , defined timetable . 
Mr Vitorino , whom I would like to thank for his speech , can give us that , provided that he has the necessary financial and human resources . 
let us give him those resources , then he can get on with his job and we all stand to gain . 
I warmly welcome the fact that the Portuguese Presidency is making justice and home affairs one of its top priorities or jewels in the crown . 
I was also encouraged by Commissioner Patten ' s comments this morning about a rapid reaction fund for security crises . 
perhaps that will end scandals like the failure of states to deploy in Kosovo the police they promised . 
I just want to highlight three areas among many where we need quick progress . 
the first is asylum . 
it is essential to establish a single European system , but one based on fairness , full respect for the Geneva Convention and decent reception conditions , including an end to routine detention . 
decisions on asylum should take months - not years . 
the second area is that of freedom : freedom to move and reside wherever one wishes in the Union ; freedom of information ; freedom to vote for all who have European citizenship - and that includes not just Member State citizens but third country nationals . 
let our citizens know that our common policies in justice and home affairs are about freedom , not just about repression . 
the last area I want to mention is convergence of civil and criminal justice systems . 
Eurosceptics claim that this is a threat to sovereignty , the end of the nation @-@ state , and so on . 
but the case of the suspect wanted for questioning in connection with the murders of three women in France , including British student , Isabel Peake , who was thrown off a train , shows why we need mutual recognition . arrested and released in Madrid , he is now being extradited after arrest in Lisbon . 
whatever the Eurosceptics say , it is in all our interests to get cooperation in such matters . 
finally , as has already been said , it is essential , and I hope that the IGC will cover this , to move to codecision with the European Parliament in these areas , with democratic and judicial scrutiny . 
Mr President , all I can say about 1999 is this : how wonderful to feel the Portuguese summer after the Finnish winter . 
I hope that it works out . 
the Tampere Summit was certainly an important milestone in 1999 for Europe , and for the area of freedom , security and justice in particular . 
numerous questions are still outstanding . answers are still awaited . 
since Tampere , there has been an imbalance between positive action and mere declarations of intent . 
regulations on nationality and the integration of people from third countries are still outstanding . 
on the other hand , quite specific action has been called for on the subject of safety of life . 
the creation of a Charter of Fundamental Rights will be one of the important projects in the immediate future . 
however , it is difficult to predict what the content of this charter will be and how it will be implemented legally when you think of the people who are not currently citizens of the Union . 
the Europol agreement has now officially entered into force . 
in Tampere , the question of granting operational powers was discussed . 
we continue to demand a review of the agreement in order to incorporate better parliamentary and judicial control . 
the agreement also attracts criticism with regard to EURODAC . 
Parliament has amended the contractual text . 
care must be taken to ensure that the Council complies with Parliament ' s modus operandi . 
unfortunately , no initiatives have yet materialised regarding other matters and we still await them . 
Europe as an area of freedom , security and justice has so far been an area with no clear regulation in important sectors . 
and yet we owe this to the citizens of Europe . 
having listened to the justice and home affairs ministers , I am optimistic and I am assuming that we will succeed in the next six months . 
Mr President , Commissioner , the oral question tabled by Mrs Terrón i Cusí shows that this House is taking a firm stance . indeed , six months after the election of this new Parliament , we should now be able to send a firm political message to the people of Europe . 
I believe that the Portuguese Presidency can contribute positively to this . 
we are all aware of the enormous expectations of our people with regard to freedom , security and justice , particularly social justice . 
yet their lack of interest and involvement and sometimes even their distaste for all things political requires us to take specific action to tackle their problems . 
this is the sine qua non condition for reconciling the popular and political spheres . 
for Europe to become the symbol of peace and fraternity , we need a bold and generous policy to come to the aid of the most disadvantaged . 
a proper plan for fighting unemployment must be established for this is the scourge which is allowing the rise of racism , xenophobia , nationalism and extreme @-@ right racist movements . 
we should remember that the most disadvantaged include immigrants and refugees . 
the virtually systematic conditions of detention and the criminalisation of asylum @-@ seekers are no longer acceptable . 
all asylum @-@ seekers must be entitled to a fair hearing and an appeal with suspensory effect . 
last week , and somewhat by chance , I witnessed , at Roissy airport , a scene of rare violence in which two young women , admittedly illegal immigrants , were being returned to Conakry . 
they were treated like the worst criminals . 
they were stripped naked and dragged along the floor by their hair , surrounded by a horde of state security police . 
the Portuguese Presidency must put an end to this type of barbaric behaviour . 
our role should be to accompany , reassure and assist those who are fleeing dictatorships . 
the Commission has proposed creating a European fund for refugees to which Parliament was favourably disposed . 
instead of all this waffling about the budget granted to this fund , we could take the decision to set this up . 
the Presidency and the Council can realise what was incomprehensibly rejected in Tampere , even though this summit provided an important basis . 
likewise , we cannot simply record the rise in xenophobic feelings in Europe and the increasingly common discrimination without taking wide @-@ ranging action . the laws against racism must be harmonised . 
what direction do you intend to give to Article 13 of the EC Treaty ? 
what do you intend to do to promote equal treatment in wages for men and women ? how do you aim to eradicate homophobia , racism and sexism ? 
we must take the best from each of our countries . 
when six European countries have granted the right to vote , the President of this House can venture to extend this right to vote , and eligibility to participate in the municipal and European elections , to all people from outside the Community who have lived in Europe for more than five years . 
the regularisation of illegal immigrants in certain countries , including your own , must act as an example to others . these illegal immigrants nowadays constitute a plethora of vulnerable people at the mercy of slum landlords , an oppressed workforce subject to economic exploitation , rendering them modern @-@ day slaves . 
in more general terms , this Presidency must start to change the behaviour and interaction of our people with minority groups and immigrants . 
immigration is too often a synonym for insecurity and violence and purely repressive responses . 
how do you intend to make our people understand that , today like always , immigration is a source of social and cultural wealth with a role which is , and will remain , essential in the context of population ? what action do you intend to take to enhance the place of immigrants in our society and to guarantee proper protection for asylum @-@ seekers ? 
Mr President , there is a great lack of transparency in the area of security , freedom and justice . 
the European Union is an economic powerhouse but we are not in a position to pontificate when it comes to our treatment of refugees . 
the level of racism in our society is terrifying . 
Ireland , for generations , sent her sons and daughters to places of safety throughout the world , but now when the Celtic tiger is providing wealth and prosperity beyond our expectations , we are showing a very ugly side to our character . 
racism in Ireland is endemic . 
it has been a relative shock to our political leaders to find we must now take a share of the refugees that have been coming into the European Union for a long time . 
we are coming from behind in dealing with the issue and the government is doing its utmost to catch up . 
there is a willingness but fear pervades , and to assuage this fear we must find political and religious leadership not only in Ireland but throughout the European Union . 
Mr President , we take note that the excuse @-@ making , reticent Presidency , which , in recent months , has prevented us from holding a debate such as the one we have been able to hold today , has come to an end . 
I totally agree with Mr von Boetticher and Mr Schulz ' s remarks , and truly believe that the European Parliament and the Court of Justice need to be more involved in the area of freedom , security and justice , without having to derogate from their own powers . 
nevertheless , to avoid the customary circus , which every six months has us indiscriminately attacking the Presidency of the Council , maybe Parliament should find the courage to undertake incisive political action so that the next Intergovernmental Conference will decide to increase codecision with immediate effect and not wait for another five years . 
the two identical @-@ sounding questions which are under discussion are , of course , underpinned by a mantra of the kind which , in recent years , has increasingly transformed politics into a type of ideology - fine @-@ sounding , but pernicious . 
and our current EU mantra is AFSJ : area for Freedom , Security and Justice . 
behind this lies another ambition on the part of the Commission and of the Council and of the overwhelming majority of this House , namely to introduce such an area . 
and who is not in favour of security , freedom and justice ? 
the problem is just that this is not something the EU can introduce by means of legislative decrees and other supranational resolutions . 
freedom , security and justice are the root system of any society , reflecting its history , corporate experience and political development . 
a system of this kind is not something the EU can introduce without society ' s sustaining damage as a result . 
but it is precisely here that we find the real rationale behind the mantra concerning security , freedom and justice . 
the agenda is not designed to secure justice for the citizen . 
that is already secured by means of the various national legal systems . 
the agenda is designed to transfer vital parts of society ' s criminal law , policy on crime and administration of justice to the EU ' s control . 
it is concerned with increased integration which , as part of a duplicitous package , involves increased repression and control . 
you just have to think of all the resolutions concerning Fort Europa , Schengen , Eurodac etc . 
any democrat can spot two key problems . 
first of all , the initiatives which have been planned are completely unrealistic . 
how is it envisaged that the EU ' s institutions , which are already stretched well beyond their capacity , can bring the ambitious projects concerned to fruition ? 
think of last year ' s deadly criticism of the Commission ' s lack of propriety , ethics and accountability . 
it also , of course , finds indirect expression in the question . 
but , secondly , the projects will put a strain on , indeed will be injurious to , the national democracies . 
as long as the EU revolved around the internal market , only the body was being attacked . 
now , it is the soul . 
Mr President , today the people of Northern Ireland see a strange irony . 
we had Commissioner Patten speaking in this House in defence of freedom , security and justice and yet his report before the British House of Commons this afternoon , which has been accepted , will do away with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserves and put the people of Northern Ireland of both religious sections into the hands of the terrorists . 
the IRA terrorists have not given up any of their weapons , nor have the loyalist terrorists , yet the police are being forced into a position where they will not have the power to resist the terrorist community . 
let me just look at the figures from the day that the agreement was signed . 
in 1998 , we had 55 murders . 
in 1999 , we had 7 murders and that does not include the Omagh bomb where 29 were killed and 300 injured . 
between 1998 and 1999 , loyalists assaulted and shot 123 people , while republicans assaulted and shot 93 people . 
charges brought against loyalists in 1999 totalled 193 , while those against republicans totalled 97 . 
since January 2000 , there have been six shootings by loyalists and two by republicans , loyalists have been involved in six serious assaults , one leading to another murder , while republicans have engaged in five serious assaults . 
Mr President , that situation cannot continue and needs remedying . 
Mr President , the Treaty of Amsterdam has set an important objective for the Union . 
this is a task which all MEPs , the Council and the Commission must take on during this legislature : the creation , as has been said already , of an area of freedom , security and justice . 
the Tampere Council , the motor and architect of this objective , has proposed certain goals , but five years , the time scale laid down for the implementation of Chapter IV of the Treaty , is too long to wait for the urgent solution which some problems require . 
my first point is that Parliament must not be excluded from the important decisions to be taken in this area and that its participation in the decision @-@ making process must be guaranteed , especially with regard to this project which affects the citizens , as the Commissioner has explained very well . 
my second point is that we must make rapid progress in the adoption of a common asylum system , adopting common procedural rules and , above all , putting an end to the current confusion between migration for political reasons and migration for economic reasons . 
the recent laws on aliens adopted in my country , Spain , and in Belgium , are a reminder that there is an urgent need for the communitisation of immigration policy . 
my third and final point relates to the external activities of the Union in the field of immigration and asylum . 
we must not and cannot give the impression that the Union exclusively wishes to defend itself from an avalanche of refugees and economic migrants . 
we must opt for a policy of cooperating in the development of our neighbouring countries in the East and the Mediterranean area , but we must do so with rigour , with economic means and in close collaboration with public institutions , which must cooperate in the protection of those citizens whose most basic rights are violated or who wish to emigrate in order to meet their most essential needs . 
finally , in relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights , the citizens of Europe need to have a vision of citizenship . 
the Euro , employment , even security , are not enough . 
they need a ' European soul ' , as a distinguished Spanish professor once said . 
Mr President , unlike some of the previous speakers , I want to go back to the words of our Portuguese ministers and Mr Vitorino . 
this trio 's words were like music to our ears as Mr Ceyhun has said . 
as with all music it needs to be a fine tune and properly orchestrated . 
many of us of here are very optimistic about the next six months . 
the tune that will be played will be one that the people of Europe will be listening to and they will want to hear the right sort of tune . 
as described this afternoon it will go a long way towards drowning out some of the unpleasant tunes we heard during the European election and over the last few months . 
the Amsterdam Treaty and the Tampere Council built on this project for an area of freedom , security and justice in the European Union . 
one area though is extremely important , and this House must be involved in it : namely scrutiny . 
there is so much legislation - and I very much welcome the Portuguese programme that was outlined to us last week - but we need to be absolutely sure that it is scrutinised , that the people in this Parliament and the members of the national parliaments and the citizens of Europe are aware of everything involved in it . 
and we must make certain that the details are applicable , appropriate and relevant to the different countries . 
I should like to draw attention to some of the aspects of the resolutions before us this afternoon , one or two of which were referred to earlier on . 
I welcome the movement towards the recognition of judicial systems in the various countries and the cooperation on crime . 
that is an area that European citizens will respond to and will be happy about . 
but the Commission and Council must know that there are many people in this House who have reservations about the Eurodac system , for example . 
we accept the predominant role of the Council in this , but there are reservations and I am sure that the Council will listen to the words coming from the elected parliamentarians here when they go through it in more detail . 
Mr Schulz said earlier on that he was not certain about the definition of ' scoreboard ' . 
anyone who is English or British or follows cricket knows what a scoreboard is . 
a scoreboard tells people the score ; it has to be up @-@ to @-@ date and it has to be clear and visible . 
I am sure that Commissioner Vitorino will make certain that is so . 
at the end of six months I hope that the music is still playing and that the European people are still listening . 
Mr President , I would like to welcome the President @-@ in @-@ Office and his colleague from the Justice Ministry , Mr Costa , and to thank them for the welcome they gave my committee in Lisbon last week and the constructive meetings we enjoyed . 
Amsterdam and Tampere have given us much work to do together , as the excellent draft resolution by Mrs Terrón today shows . 
I would like to make three brief points . 
the first is that we need a mature dialogue between the Council and the European Parliament . 
it is barely six months since Amsterdam imposed a duty on our two organisations to work together ; we have been sizing each other up , we have had a few minor spats , but we need to work effectively together . 
let us stop the shadow @-@ boxing . 
let us drop the elaborate charades and let us respect the duties that the Treaties impose on us and the timescales allowed for full democratic debate . 
involve us please in your discussions on both policy and process . 
let us not pretend that national parliaments are able to exercise effective democratic control of government activities in this area . 
my second point is that we need a properly resourced Commission . 
we have established a new Directorate @-@ General , yet it has only 70 people all told . 
there is an agreement to double this number , but I understand that , so far , not a single new person has arrived . 
we are setting the Commission a massive task , not least in the drawing up of the scoreboard . 
the Council and Parliament must work together to provide the resources that the Commission needs . 
finally , on the content of the debate , I welcome the fact that the presidency has put the area of freedom , security and justice at the top of its agenda . 
all good things come in threes , especially in our policy area . 
two hundred years ago it was liberty , equality and fraternity , and things went along very well until the governments of the left raised equality above the others . 
now it is freedom , security and justice , and I hope that the current governments of the left will heed the words of Commissioner Vitorino and resist the temptation to elevate security , important as it is , above the equally important needs of freedom and justice . 
although the main achievements in the construction of an area of freedom , security and justice should be mentioned , we must remember that there is still room for progress . 
the role of the Court of Justice is still too limited and communitisation is incomplete . 
the unilateral decision by Belgium to re @-@ establish border controls is a clear illustration of this . 
the decision to establish a Charter of Fundamental Rights is to be welcomed but it is difficult to predict whether its content and legal scope will be restrictive or symbolic , including all people , whatever their nationality , or excluding some . 
the total lack of progress in European citizenship and the political rights of all European residents is to be regretted . 
although action plans established by the high @-@ level working group aim to limit migratory flows in the future , these plans do nothing to improve human rights , civil liberties and the economic situation in the countries concerned . 
we know that readmission clauses are included in the cooperation and association agreements . 
yet these represent a serious threat to the principle of ' non @-@ refoulement ' [ no turning back ] . 
furthermore , it should be noted that these provisions were adopted within the Council by a procedure without debate and without consulting Parliament . 
however , the main concern remains ... 
( the President cut the speaker off ) 
Mr President , I would like to join my colleagues in welcoming the representatives of the Council as well as the Commissioner . 
I thank them for their statements to the House . 
rather than go back over the areas that have already been covered I would like to deal with one specific topic : the question of drugs and how we tackle the pervasiveness of the drug culture in our societies . 
I look to the Portuguese Presidency in particular to build on some of the tremendous work which was done by the Finnish Presidency in bringing forward coordinated plans and action between the Member States . 
we already have , on the international side , plans in place to combat drug trafficking , money laundering and so on . 
Mr President , I would like to use the few seconds of speaking time to which I am entitled to point out , or remind , the representative of the Commission that , in Belgium , the government is currently pursuing a policy under which thousands and possibly tens of thousands of illegal aliens are being legalised and are to receive permanent right of residence , right to be reunited with their families , etc . 
this is a Belgian government measure which flies in the face of the Schengen Treaty . 
I lodged a written complaint on the same subject to Commissioner Vitorino on 23 December . 
I would ask him to take this complaint into consideration and inform me , within the foreseeable future , of the steps the Commission will take to penalise this violation of the Schengen Treaty by the Belgian State , in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty . 
Mr President , esteemed gentlemen from Portugal , especially the Council representatives , you face great expectations on our part . 
I should like to give you an example of one way in which you can meet these expectations relatively quickly in at least one small segment . 
I refer to Eurodac . 
you will remember that we decided with great expectations here in the European Parliament in December that Eurodac would become a reality as a regulation and as a system , as a Community instrument which we urgently need in order to prevent multiple asylum applications , in order to have an instrument to fight illegality and , above all , in order to set out clearly which Member State was responsible for implementing the asylum procedure . 
we voted clearly in favour of the introduction of this instrument , together with an implementation committee , which would be attached to the Commission in just the same way that a corresponding database would be . 
we were of the opinion that EURODAC was becoming a reality . 
this is a perfect example of the sort of work we do not want to see . 
my urgent request on behalf of the Group is that you do everything to ensure that Eurodac is implemented immediately as an instrument to fight asylum abuse and illegality and as an instrument to speed up asylum procedures . 
if you tell us today how you wish to proceed , you will be doing us a great service . 
Mr President , Ministers , Commissioner , the 1999 harvest of decisions was indeed rich , so much so that it became difficult to gather , i.e. to put those decisions into practice . 
I refer in particular to the Council and to the inertia of the Member States in implementing the decisions they had jointly made . 
without wishing to ignore the progress which has been made , we , the European Parliament , would like to draw your attention to the unwillingness on the part of the Council to implement these decisions in many areas , as well as its lack of common vision and , in particular , the lack of transparency and cooperation with the European Parliament . 
from what I have said , it must be obvious to you that the European Parliament is not prepared to simply play the role of observer . 
neither will it stop raising vital issues . for example , how much progress are you willing to make and what measures , legislative or otherwise , will you be taking to combat the scourge of trafficking in human beings , child pornography on the Internet , drugs , and organised crime ? 
do you intend to press for a common policy for asylum and immigration ? 
how do you intend to go about integrating immigrants into the Community , reuniting them with their families and recognising their rights and duties on an equal footing with those of the citizens of Europe ? 
in light of this new international demographic class portrayed by experts at the UN , is it not about time you abandoned your traditional , conservative views on refugees and immigrants ? 
I have great expectations for the Portuguese Presidency . 
Mr President , I welcome much , indeed most , of what has been said in this debate . 
but I want to add a word of caution . 
we risk having not too few charters of rights in this Community , but too many : national , European Union and European Convention ; not too few tribunals having the final say about our rights but possibly too many - there is the Court across the river there , there is the Court in Luxembourg . 
there are also courts in Karlsruhe , London , Lisbon , Dublin and Edinburgh . 
we must make sure that what we do makes clear sense . 
we must not generate a confusion and conflict of jurisdictions about rights , for that would be the enemy of freedom , justice and security . 
we need , in short , to have and to sustain the highest possible common standards and to find ways of securing these . 
but we must look always to subsidiarity . 
like everybody in this House , I want freedom , justice and security . I do not want to see these degenerate into over @-@ centralisation , chaos and confusion . 
Madam President , ladies and gentlemen , I would very quickly like to make one point . various Members raised questions about the Portuguese Presidency . 
the President of Parliament has made us aware of the very limited time at our disposal , and my colleague , the Minister for Justice , and I therefore propose to reply objectively to all the questions put here at the parliamentary committee meeting which we shall be attending next week . 
( sustained applause ) 
thank you , Minister . 
the debate is closed . 
Mr President , I am grateful for the Council ' s oral , and also written , reply . 
their efficiency has been truly remarkable . 
I will save a few seconds because I wanted to propose to the Council that we continue the debate at the next meeting of the Committee on Citizens ' Rights and Freedoms , Justice and Home Affairs . 
then we will have the opportunity to comment on these replies and to express our concerns to the Commission as well . 
personally , I am pleased with some of the replies , for example , in relation to issues as sensitive as Schengen and the Europol Convention , which we hope will be reviewed , and I am pleased with the words of the Minister for Justice with regard to trying to bring them under the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities . 
I also hope that the same is done in relation to parliamentary control . 
representatives of the Council , within the next month we are going to table a motion for a resolution in this Parliament . 
I am sure that , with the willingness that you have shown today , the first thing you will do , in this new climate of understanding between us , will be to take account of the motion for a resolution which we will submit to you . 
question Time ( Council ) 
the next item is Question Time ( B5 @-@ 0003 / 2000 ) . 
we will examine questions to the Council . 
question No 1 by ( H @-@ 0780 / 99 ) : 
Turkey 's nuclear plans B which ignore the risks to the population and ecosystems of Turkey and the surrounding region B prompt the suspicion that there are underlying plans previously determined by Turkey 's political and military leaders to acquire nuclear technology enabling them to build nuclear weapons , as evidenced by their attempts to buy reactors of Canadian origin of the type acquired by India and Pakistan . 
what steps will the Council take to prevent nuclear accidents and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in a country that wishes to join the EU but spends enormous amounts on nuclear programmes while receiving financial aid from the EU budget ? 
Mr President , the Council wishes to point out that Turkey is a signatory to the Convention on Nuclear Safety , the objectives of which should allay the fears expressed by Mr Souladakis . 
the convention , as you will be aware , also covers the prevention of accidents which have radiological effects and the limitation of such effects when incidents of this kind occur . 
thank you for your answer . 
however , I would just like to add the following . Turkey is only looking to increase its energy potential by 2 % with this unit . 
nevertheless , rumour has it that it plans to buy Candu reactors of the type acquired by Pakistan and India which were used for nuclear weapons . 
in this respect , the issue requires closer examination , because the sensitive situation in the Caucasus region could heighten people ' s suspicions . 
my second point concerns the safety of these plants . 
in areas of high seismic risk , it is not enough just to have secure , earthquake @-@ proof buildings . speaking as an engineer , I can tell you that we carry out tests to investigate the effects of certain risk factors in extreme circumstances . 
however , we cannot carry out tests on nuclear plants which are in operation ; it is just not possible . 
with this in mind , it goes without saying that nuclear plants a priori should not be built in areas prone to earthquakes . 
in this respect , and because Turkey is situated on the periphery of the European Union , we should be helping it to become a more secure , peaceful and cooperative country . 
that is our role and this is the point of my question . 
I recognise the relevance of the arguments that Mr Souladakis has put forward . 
this is , of course , a highly sensitive issue . 
furthermore , it will be evident that this is a matter that does not only affect Turkey , in view of that country ' s proximity to the existing territory of the European Union . it also affects other states neighbouring the EU with which we maintain relations . 
we understand your concerns and will certainly take account of them , particularly during the discussions that we will be having with Turkey to define that country ' s own pre @-@ accession strategy agenda . 
this question will naturally be one of our key concerns , and the European Commission will not fail to take this into account . 
thank you , Mr President and thank you President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council . 
I am sure the President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council is a very nice man and is very kind to his wife and his children and his dog . 
however , forgive me if I am a little sceptical of the reply you have just given me . 
I do not believe that the statements made within the Council and the votes are available to the public immediately . 
will you please therefore undertake , before the next plenary in February , to write and tell me where I can find this information on behalf of the public , immediately the Council has passed legislation , rather than waiting for it to come out weeks later on a press release list . 
will you write to me before the next plenary with that information ? 
Mr Newton Dunn , I would first like to say that I do not appreciate the kind of personal comments with which you started your second question , and I would be grateful if you could refrain from making such comments in future . 
with regard to what you were saying , it makes me think that the criticism levelled at the Council , apart from being formulated in a very specific way of which we also take note , does not actually refer to the opacity , shall we say , of the legislative process , but rather almost to an excess of transparency . 
however , I would like to say , Mr Newton Dunn , that the results of this kind of process for transparency are quite obvious to us and we consider them to be unquestionable . 
we have no problem , Mr Newton Dunn , in repeating this information to you in writing , but we will not be able to go any further than what has been said here , because that meets the requirements of the Treaty exactly . 
we therefore consider that the General Secretariat of the Council is at present making available to the public all essential information regarding the Council ' s functions as a legislative body . 
I do not consider that the Council tried to answer my question . 
I did not ask what the Council thought of the proposal which the Commission has still not tabled . instead , my question concerns the interpretation in principle of Article 255 of the Treaty of Amsterdam . 
does this permit legislation also to be passed concerning national laws on transparency and not only in connection with the three institutions of the European Union referred to there ? 
I should like to have an answer to that question . 
does the Council consider that , on the basis of Article 255 of the Treaty , national legislation on transparency can be regulated , that is to say legislation not relating to the EU ' s institutions ? 
Mr Sjöstedt , the answer that I gave was the only answer possible . 
nevertheless , I would like to say that any interpretation of Article 255 of the Treaty must also be linked to the principle of subsidiarity . 
at the moment , there are no concrete proposals which would allow us to make adjustments under this Article , and unless there is such a proposal , we cannot move forward on this matter . 
in any event , Article 255 does not , at first sight , allow work to be done on any basis that could affect the principle of subsidiarity . 
I am , up to a point , concerned about how the Council will fight for the principles contained in the Treaty of Amsterdam and whose purpose is to ensure that citizens have a better opportunity to participate in the decision @-@ making process . 
how is this to be done when , at the same time , the Commission ' s proposal - which has been leaked , so the general public is aware of it - says that employees ' freedom of thought comes before transparency and that it is not possible to have access to working documents , reports , drafts etc ? 
does not the Council ' s representative think that this makes it difficult to participate in the democratic decision @-@ making process ? 
Mrs Frahm , the question that you raised is extremely important and we discussed it at great length during the last Intergovernmental Conference . 
I would like to say that transparency does not only apply from the Community institutions " outwards " , it also applies between the institutions . 
by this I mean that there are aspects of the form and procedure of the Community institutions ' workings which are not accessible to the other institutions , and not only as regards the Commission ' s relationship with Parliament , but also as regards the Commission ' s relationship with the Council . 
as a matter of fact , at the last conference , this issue was raised and discussed on several occasions . 
the European Parliament will have the opportunity to take part in the preparatory group for the next Intergovernmental Conference . 
the matter is still open . 
genuine transparency of the institutions ' workings and the way they are presented throughout Europe is an extremely important issue and one which , in my opinion , needs to be studied again , particularly in the context of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference . we have no doubts about this and we think that the Members taking part in this preparatory group will have an opportunity to raise this issue again . 
I believe that the Commission ' s proposal should make provision for greater transparency in terms of the way the various institutions function , but I think that there is always room for improvement in this matter . 
for our part , we are prepared to study any proposals made in this area . 
it is a very important question indeed which Jonas Sjöstedt and others have asked . 
we have a principle of transparency in Sweden which strengthens democracy and ensures that there is a worthwhile dialogue between citizens , decision makers and authorities . 
we are very anxious indeed that the EU , too , should move in this direction , and this is also stated in the Treaty of Amsterdam . 
one or two years ago , Parliament adopted a report by Mrs Lööw which is extremely important in this context . 
the report warned that the forthcoming process would lead to restrictions upon the transparency of the Member States . 
we can now see that there is perhaps some reason for this warning from Parliament . 
I want to ask the Council if it understands this warning , in view of what we have now seen in the working documents from the Commission . 
I listened very carefully to what Mr Seixas da Costa had to say on transparency and the Intergovernmental Conference . 
my concern is , if I have understood Mr Seixas da Costa correctly on the interesting points he made as regards transparency and the IGC , whether the Portuguese Presidency will take on the commitment to tackle the issue of widening the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference . 
after all , examining the issue of transparency in the ways the institutions operate should never be hidden away under any old heading or confined to some lobby or other - though I know full well the importance of these lobbies . 
it should have its own heading in the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference , which would mean widening the agenda . 
Mr Dimitrakopoulos , transparency is naturally an issue of concern to the institutions . 
this Intergovernmental Conference will , at the outset , concentrate on improving the way the institutions operate , particularly taking account of the desire we all share for them specifically to become more democratic , more transparent and more efficient . 
all of this must nevertheless be done whilst respecting a broad framework - that of the overall acceptability of any solutions we may devise to achieve these three aims . 
it is obvious that transparency will be a permanent fixture on the European agenda and it will , of course , feature on the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference . 
I can assure you that this is an issue which the Portuguese Presidency will keep before the Member States and the representatives of the preparatory group for the conference . it must therefore be able to count on the support of the Members of the European Parliament , who will surely rally behind this proposal . 
we will then see , at ministerial level , how we can follow this up . 
it should nevertheless be noted that we have just concluded the Treaty of Amsterdam , which was approved last May , and that there is a raft of implementing measures on transparency which are still in progress . the question is whether it is premature or not to start a new initiative on the subject of transparency . 
my feeling is that , in spite of everything , this issue will always have to be on the agenda , because the public is clearly concerned about it , and because it is linked with the need to make the European institutions accountable to the public . 
as far as we are concerned , they will be . 
we shall try to achieve a consensus on this matter . 
question No 5 by ( H @-@ 0785 / 99 ) : 
subject : proposal for a regulation laying down the total admissible catches for specific fish populations for the year 2000 , and the case of anchovies in particular The latest reports from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea indicate that the current level of anchovy stocks in ICES zone VIII is critical . 
does the Council believe that it is permissible to consolidate future overfishing which violates the originally established TAC of 33 000 metric tonnes per year , given the current evidence for the critical state of anchovy stocks ? 
what measures does the Council intend to adopt , and when , with a view to taking proper account of the critical state of anchovy stocks , the aforesaid quota transfer and the principle of relative stability ? 
Mr President , the Portuguese Presidency is extremely anxious to give a comprehensive answer to this question , particularly because it broaches an issue which concerns Portugal in a positive way , and I shall explain how . 
the Council is aware of the critical level of anchovy stocks in the Bay of Biscay to which Mr Ortuondo Larrea refers . 
nevertheless , at the last Fisheries Council of 1999 , held on 16 and 17 December , the Member States involved in this area of fishing , namely France , Spain and Portugal , considered that applying the precautionary principle which sets a TAC reduced from 5 000 tonnes to 2 000 tonnes , as the Commission proposed , was excessively cautious . 
a compromise solution was therefore reached in order to achieve a balance between the need to reduce the biological risks , that is the species of fish being affected , and the socio @-@ economic problems caused by fishing limits . this was achieved by fixing the TAC at an intermediate level of 16 000 tonnes instead of the 33 000 set in 1999 . 
it was also stipulated that this would be revised in the light of new scientific information on preserving species , of which we hope to see examples in the first six months of this year . 
as for the Southern stocks of anchovy in ICES zone IX , the TAC was fixed at 10 000 tonnes for the whole of 2000 as opposed to 13 000 tonnes in 1999 . 
fishing quota transfers between Portugal and France were reduced proportionally from 5 008 tonnes in 1999 to 3 000 tonnes in 2000 , for fishing in French waters . 
I would like to state that this transfer will not increase the pressure of fishing on anchovy stocks overall , over the whole Community fishing area . 
in accordance with the principle of relative stability , 90 % of stocks of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay are allocated to Spain and only 10 % to France . 
without this transfer from Portuguese waters , the level of the Bay of Biscay TAC would have to be multiplied by ten in order to grant adequate catches to France . 
that is why I think that this is quite positive from Portugal ' s point of view . 
this situation would obviously be even more damaging to the level of stocks than the risk referred to by Mr Ortuondo Larrea , which we also understand . 
Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , I must say that your comments have not satisfied me at all . 
I understand that Portugal is affected by this . 
it has been shown , as we have been claiming since 1995 , that this move is appalling , and , if Portugal and France wish to reach an agreement , that is fine by us , but these anchovies should be fished in Portuguese fishing grounds and not in the Bay of Biscay . 
today , scientific studies show that the anchovy population in the Bay of Biscay is in danger of extinction , and now there will be measures to restrict the amount of anchovy which can be fished in that Bay . 
I do not know if you are aware , representatives of the Council of Ministers , of your responsibility over these last few years , and in 2000 as well , for the plight of the families who live on anchovy fishing in the north of the Iberian Peninsular . 
the Court also stated that the principle of relative stability had not been violated since the anchovy quota allocated to Spain in zone VIII had been maintained at 90 % and France ' s at 10 % . 
apart from this , Mr Ortuondo Larrea , the Court is of the opinion that the transfer effected between Portugal and France does not violate the principle of exploiting living sea and freshwater resources in a rational and responsible way , on the grounds that the fishing pressure in zones VIII and IX neither increases nor adversely affects the overall quota of these resources allocated to Spain . 
accordingly , Mr Ortuondo Larrea , the Council reiterates its opinion that without this transfer , greater account would be taken of France ' s possibilities for anchovy fishing in the Bay of Biscay . 
the Council therefore reiterates its opinion that fishing pressure would be greater and more damaging to population numbers than the solution which was eventually chosen . 
in concrete terms , 3 000 tonnes represent 57.5 % of Portugal ' s fishing opportunities in 2000 against 5 008 tonnes or 73.9 % in 1999 . 
these numbers represent , in our opinion and in the opinion of the Council , a real improvement in terms of conservation in comparison with the level of 80 % laid down in Council Regulation 685 / 95 . 
question No 6 by ( H @-@ 0788 / 99 ) : 
subject : measures to combat the continuing ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Romanies in Kosovo On 2 December 1999 , NATO 's Defence Ministers made a strong appeal for an end to the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo 's minority communities . 
in its resolution referring to specific atrocities committed against Serbs and Romanies , Parliament also vigorously condemns the continuing violence against the Serb population and calls on the leaders of the Kosovo Albanians to fully respect UN Resolution 1244 . 
the resolution also stresses that previous persecution of the Albanians cannot constitute a pretext for killings , abductions , detentions , intimidation , arson , looting , destruction of property and the taking @-@ over of houses etc . 
in the light of the above , will the Council reconsider the funding for the reconstruction of Kosovo , as requested by Parliament ? 
what other practical measures will it take to put a stop to ethnic cleansing ? 
Mr Alavanos , I would like to say that I have the greatest sympathy for the concern underlying the issue you have raised . 
we genuinely share your concerns about the threatening situation which exists in Kosovo for ethnic minorities , for both the Serb and Romany populations , and the incidents of discrimination , harassment and intimidation which continue to take place in that region . 
the Council has always stressed the need to seek prosecution of all those who have perpetrated such acts and of those who continue to perpetrate such acts . 
in our contacts with senior political figures amongst the Kosovo Albanians , we have stressed - and the Portuguese Prime Minister did this very recently - that persecution of the Serb population , the Romany population and other ethnic groups is totally unacceptable . 
it will not be tolerated , and must stop immediately . 
it has been communicated explicitly and repeatedly to Kosovar leaders that international support will depend to a large extent on the way non @-@ Albanian minorities are treated . 
I think that this is an extremely important point : this sense of conditionality , which underlies the European Union ' s position , is being maintained by the Council and will continue to be maintained . 
we have fully supported the efforts of the United Nations mission and the international security forces in Kosovo to prevent further outbreaks of violence against minorities and to protect the populations under threat . 
KFOR and the UNMIC police consider one of their two main tasks to be preventing any form of maltreatment on the grounds of a person ' s ethnic origin . 
the Council therefore expressed its satisfaction , in its December conclusions , at the substantial contributions announced by the European Commission , which will indirectly assist in returning the situation to normal , together with similar contributions made by Member States . 
nevertheless , Mr Alavanos , the Council is also aware that the total amount of resources made available to the appropriate international organisations in Kosovo does not match the desired amount , in terms of what the various Member States have been able to raise , and this has limited the real ability of these organisations to act on the ground . 
we shall nevertheless continue to devote all our attention to this problem because the entire credibility of the authorities and of the organisations representing Albanians in the region also depends on the ability of these organisations to prove themselves capable of implementing measures which will guarantee the region ' s multi @-@ ethnic nature . 
I would like to thank Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council . 
I believe - as I think we all do - that Portugal , its former president , Mr Soares , and its government , maintained a cautious and middle @-@ of @-@ the @-@ road stance during the bombings in the Balkans . 
today ' s political statement on this issue was very positive indeed , and one which I welcome . 
however , there is some concern over the lack of progress made despite the good and honest intentions expressed by the European Union . 
unfortunately , we have recently witnessed the eradication of Serb , Romany , Turkish , and Croatian minorities in Kosovo and we are now wondering what will happen next . 
the United Nation ' s , and Mr Kouchner ' s , mission in Kosovo ended in failure . 
this failure is illustrated by the fact that after an entire war that was waged to put an end to ethnic cleansing , we now have ethnic cleansing from the opposite side . 
and so I would like to repeat my question as to whether the Council intends to take more specific action to debate these issues with Mr Kouchner , who has a major responsibility for the situation in Kosovo today . 
Mr Alavanos , I cannot agree with what you just said in your last sentence on Mr Kouchner ' s responsibilities , and I would like to make two very important points here . the structure being implemented in Kosovo is under the auspices of the United Nations . 
it is a structure to which the European Union has given as much support as it can and to which the countries of the European Union have contributed in various ways . 
there is one thing , however , that we cannot deny , and that is that Mr Kouchner ' s efforts to return Kosovo ' s internal situation to normal have been extremely positive . 
this is undeniable , even if you - or indeed we - consider that some of the results of these efforts , for reasons beyond Mr Kouchner ' s control , have not been as effective as we would all have liked them to be . 
I have one last point to make , which is about the European Union ' s responsibility and , specifically , in this case , about possible action by the Council in this matter , and the responsibility of the international community , which has overall responsibility for the situation in Kosovo . 
therefore , the responsibility of the European Union has to be seen in a certain context . 
it is the international community , and specifically the United Nations , which should be held responsible for implementing Resolution 12 / 99 and , in particular , for the thinking behind this resolution and for the compatibility of this resolution with reality . 
these are questions which we should all be asking , but the forum for putting these questions is the United Nations . 
Mr President , Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , I heartily welcome the fact that you have said that you wish to improve structures , in the aim of improving the credibility of the authorities . 
I think that we need to consider how we can best present this to the general public . 
the question which I therefore ask myself is this : has in fact a start been made on how we can promote the media in this area , how we can train journalists and how we can improve information to the public on peaceful coexistence ? 
we have endeavoured to provide material help . 
we have tried to defend peace by taking military action . 
what is the situation now as regards efforts to include psychological criteria in this crisis area and provide the best possible support here ? 
Mr Rübig , as I said , I understand your concerns very well . 
I think that , at the moment , particularly in the last few months , there have been some positive developments in terms of the resources that will be available to Mr Kouchner , in order for him to be able to do his job efficiently . 
I heard Mr Kouchner speak at the Council of Europe ministerial meeting on this issue , and I think that many of the concerns he expressed then about the lack of resources needed to overcome some of the problems have now been addressed . in other words , he has been given these resources . 
firstly , an increase in police numbers would be an important factor in guaranteeing the safety of the civilian population and , in particular , in protecting certain sections of the civilian population . secondly , an increase in appropriations would allow some officials who have important roles in the administrative and operational process in Kosovo to be kept on . 
the issue which we should all raise , and I did so myself , in a diplomatic way , a while ago , concerns the very substance of Security Council Resolution 12 / 99 . 
I know that this is an extremely delicate issue , but we should all be questioning the logic behind this resolution and its chances of being implemented . we advocate that it should be implemented in its entirety . 
what we have to do , and we in the European Union are already doing it , is to guarantee Mr Kouchner all the necessary resources , and you are right , Mr Rübig , we have a duty to our citizens to explain to them regularly and openly whether or not these resources are being properly used . 
we in the Council will be trying to provide information on this matter during the Portuguese Presidency . 
Mr Seixas da Costa , I totally agree with you . 
the problem is not Mr Kouchner but the legal basis on which he is working , namely Resolution 1244 . 
having said this , the EU ' s responsibility , which is both yours and ours , is to try and move beyond the provisional nature of Resolution 1244 and devise a future scenario for the whole region . 
it is the failure to define this scenario which is causing or encouraging the excesses , accidents and assassinations mentioned by Mr Alavanos . 
does the Council intend to raise the question of the definitive status of Kosovo ? 
if so , does it intend to do so within a general redefinition of the region , avoiding as far as possible the multiplication of micro @-@ States , as has tended to happen elsewhere , and reuniting the parties , in this case Kosovo and Albania ? 
since the author is not present , Question No 7 lapses . 
question No 8 by ( H @-@ 0796 / 99 ) : 
subject : new INTERREG Initiative In point 1 of Annex 2 to its draft Communication on INTERREG entitled : promotion of urban , rural and coastal development , the Commission authorises for the renovation and development of historic urban centres using a joint cross @-@ border strategy . however , housing is specifically excluded . 
given the fact that there are many houses in rural areas which are of historic interest , including small cottages , and , given the need , for a variety of reasons , to maintain rural populations and to attract people to rural areas , does not the Council agree that these objectives could be assisted if housing projects were funded in the areas covered by INTERREG ? 
Mr President , the Council and , I think , the Portuguese Presidency in particular , are extremely aware of the importance of the problems Mr Gallagher ' s question raises and I would like to say that we have always paid the utmost attention to Community policies for the development of rural areas . 
I would like to point out that in May 1999 we adopted a new system for supporting rural development which was the fourth Community reference framework for sustainable rural development . this was , as you know , one of the changes made during the Agenda 2000 negotiations and it changes the way in which agricultural issues are dealt with at Community level . 
through the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund , the EAGGF , this Community support framework is designed to help reverse the trend of abandoning rural areas , an issue you are quite right to raise . 
on the other hand , the European Regional Development Fund , the ERDF , also contributes as part of its role to promoting social and economic cohesion , by redressing the main regional imbalances and encouraging rural areas to take part in development and conversion . 
in this regard , we should bear in mind that the ERDF also contributes to promoting sustainable rural development and to creating sustainable employment in rural areas . 
this combination of instruments enables us to implement a policy of rural development which today , furthermore , is one of the ways in which the common agricultural policy - in one of its dimensions - and regional policy also , have developed and changed . 
we think that this is one of the most fundamental issues within the concept of multifunctionality which is now associated with changes in the common agricultural policy , and the EAGGF , of course , has a crucial role to play in this . 
question No 9 by ( H @-@ 0798 / 99 ) : 
subject : farming and the Portuguese Presidency Will the Council outline the priorities of the Portuguese Presidency for the next six months as regards the common agricultural policy and indicate the steps it feels are necessary to boost consumer confidence in the agricultural sectors and products adversely affected by recent health scares ? 
your question on the common agricultural policy is one which we take very seriously and which should always be considered in this House ' s discussions , because in the future we are likely to discuss this issue at great length . 
during the Portuguese Presidency , we will be continuing discussions on the CAP , by adapting some of the common market organisations with a view to developing the Union ' s rural areas in an appropriate way and guaranteeing an improvement in farmers ' incomes , paying particular attention to measures which could have an impact on small family @-@ run farms . 
the Portuguese Presidency also attaches importance to reinforcing food safety policy and I think that the Portuguese Foreign Minister and President @-@ in @-@ Office already referred to this aspect this morning . 
we think that the role of food safety , specifically in terms of everything linked to public health , is one of our presidency ' s essential tasks . it is therefore one of the priorities of our programme . 
this is what we shall be trying to achieve during the Portuguese Presidency and we hope , at the end of it , to be able to present the result of our efforts to this House . 
I thank the President @-@ in @-@ Office for his reply . 
I am sure that he is aware of the very serious threat to the European model which is based on family farming , mainly those farmers involved in beef and sheepmeat production who are now expected to sell their produce at or below production costs . 
I completely understand your concerns , and I feel that there is a need for effort and a certain degree of consistency within the European Union itself on this issue . 
we also have to think of the consequences , especially in terms of financing and compensating farmers . 
nevertheless , as you know , this issue is now in the hands of the European Commission and it will have to take this further . 
the Council ' s ability to intervene in this matter is strictly limited . 
Mr President , I too would like to welcome the President @-@ in @-@ Office to the Chamber . 
but I do not think he answered my question with regard specifically to tackling homelessness and housing and whether the Portuguese Presidency would be willing to meet the non @-@ governmental organisations actively involved in this field . 
I appreciate and fully support his point on the need for multiple policies and a multi @-@ disciplinary approach and also the need to combat the underlying causes of exclusion which can lead to homelessness and include the problem of drug dependency . 
my specific question concerns the problem of homelessness and whether a new presidency could take a new initiative to try to overcome some of the difficulties the President @-@ in @-@ Office alluded to with regard to support at intergovernmental level . 
I feel this is one area where Europe can play a very active role , even if only in providing the conduit for exchange of experience and best practice among the Member States . 
Mr Crowley , with regard to the presidency ' s scope for supporting actions by non @-@ governmental organisations , particularly those which attempt to resolve the problems faced by the homeless , I would like to say that such initiatives are welcome , and we are very much open to the possibility of supporting them . 
we have worked closely with Portuguese NGOs and with some initiatives they have proposed within the framework of the Portuguese Presidency , which we are combining with the wide range of concerns underpinning our whole programme . 
we have no specific , concrete initiatives in this area but that does not mean that we are closed to the idea that an initiative proposed to us by NGOs in this area might be considered during our presidency . it should be pointed out that this can only be done within the Council ' s scope for action . 
any aspect of this which may impinge on the Commission ' s right of initiative will obviously have to be done through the Commission itself . 
Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , you have talked a lot about the future , about what the Commission will do , and what the Presidency will do in Lisbon , etc . 
however , you also said something which I find particularly frightening . 
you said that in Lisbon you intend to discuss more dynamic and competitive development . 
I am beginning to feel a little worried because this may lead , partially at least , to exclusion . 
I do not see how you could , with the views that you hold , provide any answers . 
what I asked and what I am once again asking is the following : what are the views of the Portuguese Presidency on , for example , the appeals made by the network to combat poverty and exclusion , the division of work and social security , the implementation of tax policies , particularly for speculative capital , and the policy of redistributing wealth ? 
I would like an answer as to whether or not the Portuguese Presidency intends to do something about these matters . 
you must understand that a presidency ' s ability to reverse global social or economic trends during its six months in office is actually quite limited . 
I think that it is also obvious that our ability to act is linked to the Commission ' s own scope for intervening , through its right of initiative . 
the second is to create internationally competitive conditions , which will enable us to improve the economic fabric of the European Union , and this will have positive knock @-@ on effects on the problems of social exclusion . 
the Portuguese Presidency does not have a magic wand with which it can , in six months , resolve problems that have always existed . 
it is prepared to act on proposals by the Commission in any area for which there is Community competence . it also has the opportunity and the desire to promote the whole raft of measures which may be presented , specifically by non @-@ governmental organisations , but also through the intergovernmental collaboration which is traditional in these matters . 
we should , however , also bear in mind , Mr Papayannakis , that we cannot act in an area which will have such a big financial impact , armed only with the measures a presidency can propose in the space of six months . 
we therefore think that all the measures we have highlighted in terms of long @-@ term strategies , regardless of the fact that we know that in the long term , some of the homeless may be dead , will help us to guarantee sustainable policies in the European Union . 
we will try to move these strategies forward as much as possible during our presidency . 
question No 12 by ( H @-@ 0801 / 99 ) : 
subject : Portuguese Presidency and development policy Will the President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council make a statement on the priorities of the Portuguese Presidency with regard to development policy , the Convention of Lomé and tackling famine situations ? 
I would like to thank the presidency for the comprehensive answer to my question , and indeed the Minister who spoke to the Committee on Development last week in Brussels outlining the position . 
but there are some questions still outstanding . 
there does not seem to be any emphasis on the fight against AIDS in the programme . 
the situation of AIDS in Africa now is so serious that more people are dying of AIDS than are dying in conflict . 
I hope that the Minister will take some time to pursue that particular issue . 
medicines are available in the United States but the United States is not making them cheap enough for the people in Africa . 
I should like to ask the Minister what precisely he is doing about the situation that is developing in Ethiopia where there is drought , where the crops have failed , and where , in six months ' time , we will inevitably be back to the situation as it was some years ago in Ethiopia with famine and people dying in their thousands . 
at the same time , there is a war going on between Eritrea and Ethiopia and the armaments industry in Europe is not short in sending guns , after which we will send the bread . 
first of all , Mr Andrews , you must understand that I do not agree with your interpretation of my colleague ' s speech during the meeting of the Committee on Development . there is no contradiction between our two positions , quite the opposite . 
unless we wish to act like megalomaniacs , we cannot in the course of one presidency perform an exhaustive inventory of all possible and imaginary situations relating to all the enormous issues we face , particularly in the area of external relations . 
as you can understand , it would be easy to do so . 
all we would have to do is get a directory of development and put all the items in our programme , one after the other . 
we are sufficiently responsible to realise that we should only include those which we will be able to manage during the term of our Presidency and - we should always be aware of this - within governments ' ability to act and within the scope of the Council . 
we must understand that there are limitations on what we can achieve , particularly in terms of managing national indicative programmes . 
you have mentioned Ethiopia , which falls within the scope of national indicative programmes , but there are , as you know , several Community actions to combat AIDS , and in this respect , you are right , and the United States will probably not do any better . 
indeed , in terms of development aid policy , I think that Europe has absolutely nothing to worry about for the simple reason that our behaviour in this area compares very favourably with that of the United States . 
your question switched to the subject of arms , a broader policy issue which I do not think falls within the scope of this question but which the Council will , of course , address in the future , if it sees fit and if it decides to put it in a specific context . 
is the Council aware of the social problems caused by the export of food by the EU to developing countries at prices below the cost of production ? 
does the presidency intend to do anything about this ? 
since the author is not present , Question No 13 lapses . 
I would like to thank the President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , and I would personally like to welcome him and the Portuguese Presidency . 
please allow me to remark on how well @-@ versed and well @-@ informed he is on European affairs . 
unfortunately , in my case , he did not provide what I would call a satisfactory answer . 
since the Council recognises the fact that culture is a major economic asset , it should , in my view , demonstrate this in practice . 
saying that the cultural dimension is governed by the principle of subsidiarity and that it is therefore national governments who are responsible is , I am afraid , just an excuse . 
my question , which has not been answered , is why , when the European Parliament is looking to increase appropriations to fund cultural programmes within the European Union , the Council and the Commission are cutting back on appropriations and at times cutting them out altogether . 
this is a true example of the Council ' s indifference towards culture , despite its assurances to the contrary that it is a matter to which it attaches great importance . 
I would therefore like to ask the Council if it is prepared henceforth to support culture with the same readiness as it supported bananas , hops , cows and Indian hemp . 
Mr Marinos , we are not adopting a purely economic approach to managing the Portuguese Presidency , and therefore , the cultural dimension is , I am sure you will appreciate , one of our main concerns . 
these cultural dimensions , however , almost always have their own economic dimension in turn , that is the level of resources which can be called on specifically to provide aid for cultural initiatives . 
this is a dimension which it is difficult to go beyond within the framework of the European Union , and especially within the framework of the Council . 
for our part , we shall be attempting to strengthen and consolidate the European position on cultural goods and services and on activities in this sphere , because we believe that this is an identifying feature which is crucial to the Union ' s image and to the Union ' s own particular identity . 
this is , and will continue to be , connected with developments within the World Trade Organisation . 
as you know , both we and the Council have addressed this issue appropriately . in specific terms , we have been able to find a common language in terms of the mandate given to the Commission for the next round of WTO negotiations , at which this will be a central issue . 
nevertheless , I would like to add that with regard to cultural policy , and in particular the audiovisual dimension , the Portuguese Presidency will be paying very close attention to extending and enriching European audiovisual policy by adopting a Media @-@ Plus programme which could go some way towards allaying Europe ' s main fears . 
we also intend to initiate a new debate , a more innovative one , on the issue of Europe ' s film heritage , given that this must be one of the most important factors in the development of a European cultural identity and of a European audiovisual economy . 
the Presidency will also concentrate on discussions about creating a digital television system in Europe , which will be the subject of a conference that we shall be organising during the Portuguese Presidency , in conjunction with the Commission , in February 2000 . 
but , Mr Marinos , in the EU context , culture is an issue which is repeatedly raised in connection with IGC agendas . 
if , by chance , it were possible to agree to include the cultural dimension in what has been called the fifth negotiating box of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference , then this could be suggested , both by Member States , and by the Members of the European Parliament taking part in the preparatory group . 
of course , if consensus could be reached on this issue at the Intergovernmental Conference , there might eventually be progress . 
it remains to be seen whether or not there is a consensus on this . 
we will soon see , and for our part , we will bear in mind any suggestions on this issue . 
Mr President , I join others in wishing Portugal every good wish for a successful presidency . 
I notice that you said this particular issue was not currently on your agenda for the next IGC but if some people wished it , you would consider it . 
well , I , and my fellow 35 British Conservative MEPs wish it and would like you to please consider it . 
I appreciate that it is a provocative question . 
it is meant to provoke because there is a very serious issue here that some countries do not hold EU law in the respect which it deserves . 
we have to find some way of putting pressure on such countries to do just that so we can reconnect with our citizens . 
I cannot think of a better way to do it . 
can you ? 
the issue is whether the European dimension will become stronger or weaker as a result of being specifically integrated into the Treaties . 
this is an issue which , as you will understand , will have to be addressed at IGC level and is an issue that only a Special European Council can authorise the Portuguese Presidency to pursue , because this kind of issue falls outside the institutional framework in which the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference will take place . 
Intergovernmental Conferences are a kind of event in themselves and could also be a type of Christmas tree . 
it is therefore not out of the question that these issues , which crop up again and again , and which are passed from one conference to another , may be addressed . 
the problem facing us at the moment is whether there is currently a consensus within the European Union on this issue being included , particularly bearing in mind that if one such issue is included , other issues of a similar nature will probably be added to the conference ' s agenda . 
Mr Dimitrakopoulos has the floor for a procedural motion . 
I would ask him to be brief . 
Mr President , I understand that I have to do this very quickly . 
I liked what Mr Seixas da Costa said about Father Christmas . 
in Spain they say a letter to the three kings . 
I simply wish to remind you that the European Parliament has already sent a letter to the three kings through its reports . 
now the Presidency and the Council have to bring the presents which we have asked them for in our letter to the three kings . 
as I suspected , it was not exactly a procedural motion , but more a closing of the debate . 
we thank Mr Seixas da Costa , but he can also write his letter to the three kings . 
I would merely say that the festive issue which Mr Dimitrakopoulos has raised is an extremely important one . 
the problem is that in this case Father Christmas has to follow orders and therefore he can only give presents when he is authorised by others to do so . 
it is not the Portuguese Presidency ' s job to hand out the presents that everyone wants , especially those that the European Parliament is asking for . 
after this interesting exchange of opinions , and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure , I would like to tell you that Questions Nos 17 to 27 will be replied to in writing . 
that concludes questions to the Council . 
capital tax 
the next item is the joint debate on : 
the oral question ( B5 @-@ 0004 / 2000 ) by Mr Désir and others , to the Council , on the Council position on the idea of a capital tax 
the oral question ( B5 @-@ 0005 / 2000 ) by Mr Désir and others , to the Commission , on the Commission position on the idea of a capital tax . 
Madam President , Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , Commissioner , during the Asian crisis in 1997 , as with those which hit Mexico in 1995 or the EMS in 1993 , everyone could see the damage caused to the economies of entire countries by financial speculation , particularly currency speculation . 
between EUR 1 500 and 2 000 billion are traded every day on the financial markets . in three or four days , this can equal the total figure of annual global production , or global GDP , of approximately EUR 6 000 billion . 
the bulk of these financial transactions are purely speculative and do not involve any trade in goods or investments . 
yet the erratic movement of these massive sums of capital can , in a few hours , cause the collapse of a currency or the economy of a country , plunging its whole population into recession . 
note that this proposed tax , which seems to be producing strong emotions in some people , would be the lowest tax in the world and the lowest in the history of global taxation . yet it would represent the recapture of the areas seized from democracy by the financial sphere . 
one reason for the acceptance of this proposal , and of the campaigns by NGOs such as ATTAC , SOLIDAR or others which have popularised this proposal , is that it would release resources which could be allocated to development programmes in the poorest countries , in areas such as education or health . 
it could act as a kind of asset redistribution in a world where there is both increasing wealth and increasing poverty . 
many personalities and institutions have come out in favour of this tax such as the Brazilian President , Fernando Cardoso , the Finnish Government , the Canadian Parliament last March and also Lionel Jospin in 1995 . 
this question has been debated in several national parliaments of the EU . 
the common response has been that this tax could not be applied solely at national level and that the right platform for tackling this is the European Union . this is the reason for the oral question to the Council and Commission which we have tabled with 37 other Members . 
this motion asks the Commission to present a report to Parliament within six months on the feasibility of this tax . it also asks for an examination of the pressures and financial sanctions which could be applied against countries which encourage tax evasion or which maintain tax havens . 
one of the most common objections is that such a tax would be too complex , but this could be said of any tax . if this argument had been accepted in the past , then no taxes would ever have been created . 
the motion also asks that a position document , drawn up by the Commission and Council , should be submitted before the next annual meeting of the IMF . 
the European Union must take the initiative and must also , as demanded in the motion , propose this initiative to the G7 because it is primarily a political question . 
if the Union takes the initiative , this will have a ratchet effect because this debate is occurring all over the world , including in the USA and Japan . a desire is being expressed everywhere with increasing force that the world should not be ruled by traders but by the people , their parliaments , their governments and their democratic institutions . 
Europe must play a role in this new international regulation and I am extremely happy that today , with this debate and this motion , this question is now on the agenda of European construction . 
Madam President , I do not have a great deal to add on this subject . 
the Council has not yet discussed the possibility of introducing a tax on movements of capital as Professor Tobin suggested . 
this is a creative initiative , which we know has been welcomed by different industries across the world and by various sides in European politics , but the Commission has not yet put forward any proposal or initiative on this issue . 
as it falls to the Commission to propose any such initiative , the Council has not yet been able to adopt a position on this issue . 
Madam President , the revenue basis of the Tobin tax is said to be made up of very short @-@ term exchange transactions . 
such transactions , according to the argument , bear very little relation to fundamental economic variables . 
this has also just been underlined by Mr Désir . 
therefore , according to proponents , such as Mr Désir , an internationally applied Tobin tax would , in principle , reduce speculative transactions and , hence , the volatility of exchange rates , which would lead to an improvement in economic prosperity . 
taking into account the considerable volume of short @-@ term financial streams , even a low nominal Tobin tax would yield respectable sums of tax revenue . 
in reality , the motive underlying the increased interest in the Tobin tax and other sources of international finance in the mid @-@ nineties was non @-@ economic . indeed , it was fuelled by the potential of this tax to generate income for international , public programmes at a time when demand for such funds was rising quickly and funding was increasingly harder to come by . 
the Commission recently observed renewed interest in a global tax , such as the Tobin tax , as a means of achieving socially responsible globalisation , so to speak . 
Mr Désir too has mentioned this growing interest on all sides . 
but if the Tobin tax were to be applied unilaterally in order to prevent attacks on a specific currency , then this tax could not be effective and it could harm the internal financial market . 
put more strongly , in the long term it is possible that for large numbers of funds , the Tobin tax will be evaded by shifting foreign exchange rate transactions to off @-@ shore tax havens . 
in that case , the tax could lead to a net loss of total economic prosperity . 
so the Tobin tax can only be effective if there is a sufficient number of industrialised countries which are prepared to participate . 
finally , even if the Tobin tax is designed to curb speculations with currencies , there is still the risk that even non @-@ speculative streams would be affected , and that is not the intention . 
for the reasons set out above , I cannot see a good reason for introducing a European Tobin tax . 
at any rate , the Commission is against any attempt to restrict capital movement within the European Union . 
in more direct terms , to the extent that this measure could be deemed an indirect restriction on capital streams , this would contravene the Treaty of Rome . 
the correct speculative approach , it seems to me , is to remove the real causes which lead to financial chaos , rather than attempting to suppress its symptoms by introducing obstacles to the operation of the markets . 
Madam President , Commissioner , I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question . 
also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism , and not just the economic and financial policy experts . 
we know what the problem is : instability on the markets as the result of speculation . 
but the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability , as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us , is the result of speculation . 
the Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south @-@ east Asian currencies in 1997 . 
the initiators of this question do not propose a solution ; instead they are calling for a new burden , they are calling for more bureaucracy , for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary ' s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee , contrary to several resolutions by Parliament . 
in my view , and I say this quite clearly , the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution @-@ focused . 
I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons . 
why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable ? 
first , and the Commissioner has also confirmed this , because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets . 
even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets , because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably . 
in addition , this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital , which is one of the central tenets of the internal market . 
secondly , speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify . 
thirdly , unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time , tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes . 
fourthly , technically speaking , this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control . 
the measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today . we need stronger banking supervision . 
we need a framework of regulations at international level . we need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up . 
I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands . 
I refer to point 9 . 
having listened to the Commissioner just now , we know that the Commission ' s knowledge of the facts will result in a ' no ' to the Tobin tax . 
if the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say , and I think that they are right , then to take up another six months of the Commission ' s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible . 
the capital markets do not want uncertainty from us , they want clarity ; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote . 
Madam President , the debate on a tax on short @-@ term financial actions is not a new one . 
we have been discussing the Tobin tax proposal for twenty years and yet the question is still topical because we need really concrete and honest answers based on careful studies . 
we need to know just how desirable and feasible a tax on short @-@ term transactions really is . 
this question has now entered a different dimension , a dimension in which USD 1 500 billion roam the world twenty @-@ four hours a day looking for attractive investments , no more than 3 % of which have anything to do with the real economy . 
we are concerned about stability on the financial markets , not for the sake of the financial markets , but because this has to do with own growth , our own investments and our own jobs in the European Union . 
we must ask what instruments we can use in order to create the order here which has been missing in the past . 
we have done everything to help liberalise financial transactions , but so far we have had no working set of rules , as we have learned from the bitter lessons of the repercussions of the Asian and Latin American crises . 
it is therefore high time that we thought both about supervisory regulations and about transparency on the financial markets and their information . 
it is important that we know who the actors are and what their credit rating is . 
we must also ask if there is not a need for fiscal justice . 
at a time when the tax burden on the work factor is increasing throughout Europe and internationally , we must consider how we can achieve efficient taxation of investment income and that includes the question of how to tax short @-@ term financial transactions . 
I think that we really do need a careful report and conclusions from the Commission , so that we as the European Parliament can see if we need to ensure that the European Union achieves real international solidarity with the USA and Japan in making the economy and the financial markets more stable and secure . 
this is the intention behind the question and we must then follow the ordinary procedures of reports from committees and plenary debate in order to reach a balanced and really forward @-@ looking proposal . 
I will have to repeat these arguments , modestly , in this intervention , because the same issue has arisen once again . 
we do not agree with this type of tax because its application , in the event that it could happen , would not achieve the aims which Mr Tobin presented at the time and which the Left in this House wishes to revive . 
firstly , there is no evidence that the tax on international capital movements could reduce the dangers of volatility and instability in the international markets . 
on the contrary , since it is certain that not all countries would accept it , we would open the way to speculation and fraud and that really would create volatility , instability , insecurity , opacity and unfair competition in the field of financial services operating on an international level . 
furthermore , the idea of obtaining resources to apply them to the more economically needy countries presents such complexity , when we consider their application in practice , that it appears simply impossible . 
this is a false debate whose aim is purely political , and has no basis or technical viability . 
furthermore - since we are in this European Parliament - if we have still not managed the slightest agreement with regard to the package of fiscal measures proposed by the Commission within the European Union , how can we expect to achieve a fiscal agreement on an international level ? 
I suppose that the first thing they say will be , ' let us see whether you are capable of reaching a fiscal agreement within the Union ' . 
however , the Liberal Group has not wanted to close the door to a new analysis of this issue and , therefore , we have accepted a joint motion for a resolution proposing that a study be carried out on the possibility and suitability of imposing this tax on certain areas of international capital movements . 
I am sure that this study - if carried out objectively , with knowledge of the financial markets and their mechanisms on an international level - will show that it is neither suitable nor possible , not only in terms of its application , but also as a means of achieving the proposed objectives . 
in itself , globalisation is positive . 
the economy has never grown so much nor favoured so many countries on a global level . 
this is due to progressive opening up and greater freedom in the international trade in goods and services and also a greater capacity for adequate movement of capital . 
any analysis of economic development in recent years , if objective , will show , through the figures , that they have no political colour or orientation . 
as I have said , we are not opposed to such a study . 
we will support the motion for a resolution in support of this study , but we simply insist that , as this motion for a resolution points out , it is by means of liberalisation and opening up at an international level that we will achieve economic progress , both on the level of states and on a general level . 
Madam President , Commissioner , the problem does not lie in the ideology of the debate but in its political nature . 
as Mrs Randzio @-@ Plath said , we must remember that the reason why certain Members want to revive this question is because of the recent international financial crises and their economic , social and environmental consequences which have been felt by all in some countries . 
the main objective of this debate is to look at the instruments available to the international community for stabilising the international financial and monetary system . 
in this respect , Mr Bolkestein , the motion for a resolution cannot be separated from the issue of the Tobin tax . 
if you look carefully , this proposed tax on capital is just one of several instruments aimed at forcing international investors to behave responsibly on the financial markets . 
secondly , the motion does not say that we want a solely European initiative . 
this is why we explicitly refer to the autumn session of the International Monetary Fund so that the European Union , in other words the Commission and also the Council , can decide how it will defend the opportunity to stabilise the international financial and monetary system and introduce international taxation . 
there should be no confusion in this debate . as environmentalists , we do not want an excuse for a motion . 
although a study produced by the Commission would doubtless be interesting , we do not need another to add to those already available . 
as for the argument that this initiative would increase uncertainty , very short @-@ term capital movements are specifically intended to play on uncertainty and to bet on changes between currencies or various short @-@ term financial assets . 
this argument is therefore not relevant . 
I will not go into the basic issue any further for everyone has their arguments . 
however , I would highlight not only paragraph 9 of the motion , but also paragraph 10 . 
we clearly expect a political stance to be taken with a very firm deadline of the preparations for the autumn session of the International Monetary Fund . we therefore demand , if this motion is adopted tomorrow , that the Commission and Council appear before Parliament to tell us what positions they will take on this occasion . 
Madam President , my Group is extremely delighted that this debate is taking place today , particularly as we have spared no effort along with Members of other groups to bring this about . 
obviously we all have different approaches which is demonstrated by our debate and the motions for a resolution tabled at the beginning . 
having said this , our Group is pleased about the step forward which the compromise motion represents . this invites the Commission to present a report within six months . 
the European Parliament can play its role by taking the initiative , even if it does so timidly , on this subject . however , I agree with the previous speaker that , if paragraph 9 were challenged , this motion would clearly lose its substance . 
this debate concerns a vital question which increasing numbers of people are legitimately raising . what are the respective places of people and finance in today ' s economy ? 
USD 1 800 billion is the volume of money moved every day in the world ' s currency markets . this represents over a quarter of the annual global volume of trade in goods and services . 
by putting finance at the helm , this has reinforced the demands of profitability and toughened the operating conditions everywhere . 
it has led to a growth in mergers , acquisitions and company restructuring and to gigantic sums being raised with increasing frequency on the financial markets . 
unemployment and pressure on employees worldwide is increasing . 
openings and real growth are being hampered and the sudden influx or withdrawal of speculative capital is threatening the economies of many countries , to the point of collapse , as in Asia , Russia and Brazil . 
faced with this neoliberal globalisation dominated by the financial markets , demand , as our motion recognises , is developing from a different idea of the world in which common law stipulates a duty of solidarity in an increasingly interdependent world . 
no one can ignore the challenge to civilisation posed by the lack of nearly one billion jobs and the need to make unprecedented efforts in terms of development and access to information . 
in this respect , all ideas deserve to be considered , including the Tobin tax which is important , just like other forms of transaction which may be envisaged . 
this tax could help to check speculation without penalising the activities of the real economy . it could release new resources for investment in people and , at a time when the UNDP estimates the sum needed to eradicate poverty to be USD 40 billion per year , it could allow access for everyone to drinking water and satisfy health needs . 
when the debate on the ability of politics to influence economics goes global , the establishment of this tax could become one of the symbols of the political desire to recapture the democratic areas seized by the international financial operators . 
the Commissioner has said that a minimum number of industrialised countries would be needed to achieve this . 
I would point out that the European Union is composed of a large number of industrialised countries and , like Mr Désir and several other speakers , I feel that the European Union which we are forming can take the initiative in this respect . 
in any case , the European Parliament would be honoured to take up the call of the people to control the world in order to achieve a sense of well @-@ being for everyone . 
Madam President , although some of the aims of the Tobin tax are fairly worthy of support , introducing the tax exclusively within the territory of the European Union , as the first area of the world to do so , would sound the death knell for the European currency markets . 
if the world ' s other important currency trading areas were to be excluded from the Tobin tax , the fact that tax was liable to be paid in Europe would lead to currency dealing moving to those areas . 
this has already been made clear a number times in this debate . 
it is not enough that all the world ' s industrialised countries should be included in the scheme , as then currency trading would move to tax havens outside that group of countries . 
there should therefore be a universal application : it is not enough that the G7 countries or the other industrialised countries are involved . 
on the other hand , it would be so difficult to bring the scheme into force everywhere in the world at precisely the same time - and personally speaking , I do not believe we can achieve this - that the Tobin tax dream might as well be buried . 
furthermore , although there might be international consensus on the introduction of the scheme , the question would remain regarding how the tax revenue would be distributed . 
the world ' s currency dealing centres will hardly agree to the tax revenue being used , for example , for a variety of well @-@ meaning , UN @-@ backed purposes throughout the world without a considerable amount of the revenue remaining with them . 
with regard to the Tobin tax as a means of preventing future currency crises , it has to be realised that the causes of a currency being overvalued cannot be averted through taxation . 
for that reason , as Mr Karas also said , we should give more attention to the policies that lead to a certain currency being overvalued in relation to its actual potential value . 
this again would require measures to regulate the exportation and importation of capital ; otherwise it would not be possible to focus on policies in this way . 
although it seems a reasonable scheme , the Tobin tax is not without its problems , even if there should be agreement as to its implementation , which I do not believe there will . 
it has to be remembered that money at present is first and foremost information , and that the global economy will , in the future , rotate more and more on the basis of information and intellectual capital . 
for that reason , the uninterrupted flow of assets in massive volumes between the world ' s financial centres is not merely speculative activity , which has nothing to do with the real economy . 
if this ' feedback ' mechanism , which gives users the opportunity to make choices , were hampered by measures such as the Tobin tax , mistaken decisions might be made that turned out to be so costly in terms of the economic consequences that the tax would never be able to make up for it . 
hence , as Mr Karas has stated to his credit , our Group is resolutely opposed to the introduction of the Tobin tax . 
Madam President , I speak as someone who is in support of a tax on speculative capital movements across currency borders . 
it seems to me blindingly self @-@ evident that some action is necessary . 
the size , unpredictability and irrationality of the global foreign exchange markets have made it harder and harder to manage national and regional economies . 
computer @-@ controlled selling programmes turned a random blip into an avalanche , burying jobs , lives and industries across the globe . 
the only arguments against it are : firstly , it would impair the efficiency of the foreign exchange market - a little fanciful in light of the financial feeding frenzies we have seen that have destroyed jobs throughout the world , in East Asia , Europe and Latin America . 
Mr Chirac has described those who engage in this as the Aids virus of the world economy . 
what is necessary is to throw some sand into the wheels of the currency speculators , stockbrokers and option traders . 
of course , this cannot be done in one country ; it cannot be done within the single currency area , but it could be done at international level with global cooperation . 
Europe , Japan and the US - the euro , the yen and the dollar , would constitute , in my opinion , such a block . 
I am disappointed in the EPP . 
I thought at least they read the resolutions they were going to vote on . 
yes , I am in favour of such a tax , but it is not what we are going to vote on tomorrow . 
what we are going to vote on tomorrow is to ask the Commission to study the matter , to look at what steps and what conditions would be necessary for the introduction of such a tax . 
equally I understand the Commissioner failing to endorse such a tax , but I cannot understand why he failed to have the courage to welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of his position by a study of the issue . 
there is nothing so closed as a closed mind . 
the tax has the support of 47 % of the people in the UK , according to a recent survey by War on Want . 
in France it has had enormous resonance , particularly when linked to a demand to use the proceeds to help the Third World out of its debt and poverty . 
this issue can no longer be ignored by Parliament , the Council or the Commission . 
there is now a weight of public opinion demanding an answer more sophisticated than : " it has not been done before " . 
in the new millennium , with new global problems requiring new global solutions , they need to give good arguments why it cannot be done now , rather than why it has not been done in the past . 
Madam President , Commissioner , a compromise resolution on the usefulness of a tax on international financial flows would constitute a first step towards the essential amendment of many international rules . 
I have two or three points to make in this respect . 
one of the main demands of the demonstrators in Seattle was , rightly , the establishment of this type of tax , and this is not by chance . 
the proposal of this tax today sends out a strong signal from the rich European countries proving that they want to move away from the culture of egoism . 
everyone feels that this kind of joint tax is a virtuous measure which does not prevent trade but is aimed primarily at speculation and its perverse effects . the Members on the right should note this . 
it symbolises the need for solidarity with the countries of the south , particularly those in Africa , the Caribbean and the Pacific which questioned us extensively on this subject in Seattle . 
in order to fully achieve its objective , the money supply released by such a tax must be redistributed among the poorest countries . 
this is how we can give sense and morality to the commercial rules and show solidarity with the people of the south . 
Madam President , we cannot just keep repeating the number which several previous speakers have quoted ; we must also mention the fact , Commissioner , that 80 % of these huge , daily foreign exchange sales have an investment term of no more than eight days . 
we cannot maintain a situation in which investments and the creation of jobs are less lucrative than short @-@ term sales of foreign currency and shares . 
we cannot maintain a situation in which we allow ourselves to destroy the opportunity to take political action . we cannot maintain a situation in which income from non @-@ economic activities increases more and more quickly . 
it has been demonstrated in Germany that income from monetary assets has almost doubled from 7.6 % of overall economic income since Tobin developed his idea . 
we cannot maintain a situation in which the poorest countries of the world are most exposed to the speculative arguments surrounding short @-@ term currency fluctuations . 
nor do I believe that this is impracticable . 
why should it not be possible for the G7 countries , the other EU Member States , China , Singapore and Switzerland to come to an agreement on the introduction of the Tobin tax ? 
there must be an overriding economic interest . 
why should it be impracticable , and it can be differentiated , to impose this tax on spot foreign exchange transactions , all the so @-@ called cash transactions , currency futures and options ? 
why should it be impracticable to set this tax at a rate which does not jeopardise the long @-@ term investments needed by the economy but which finally makes short @-@ term and speculative investments unattractive . 
numerous very difficult questions are bound to arise , but the only real problem which I can see so far is one of political will and the St. Florian principle of shifting responsibility from one agency to another which has now taken hold . 
Madam President , we are not asking for more bureaucracy , as Mr Karas put it just a few minutes ago . 
we are looking for solutions . 
of course capital markets need clarity - that is actually the idea . 
the Tobin tax will bring some transparency to a very obscure question . 
" the more progress is made towards trade liberalisation , the more rules are needed " , as Commissioner Lamy said during the Millennium Round in Seattle . 
he recognised that the combined impact of the single market and the single currency that characterise the process of the European Union 's construction is intimately linked to a huge amount of new regulations . 
now that financing is readily available across national boundaries without any difficulty the same approach will obviously be strictly necessary , all the more so as we consider that an enormous amount every single day is employed in speculative transactions . 
we citizens of the world cannot afford the current rate of speculation . 
to continue would be economic suicide . 
honourable Members , Commissioner , it is often said that Europe has succeeded in stabilising the economic sector , but this is only true if we confine ourselves purely to the public sector . 
if we look at the private sector , however , we will find not only that this fabled ' financial stability ' has been unsuccessful but that we are most probably sitting on a volcano ready to erupt at any moment . 
the debt burdens of the private sector and the corresponding excessive inflation of Stock Exchange securities , the two main market stability indicators , have , for some time , been at danger levels , as the Commission report on the economic situation in Europe clearly illustrates . 
the fact that the public accepts such rates and does not just abandon all financial activities in a panic can be explained by overambitious expectations over future gains . 
speculative activities are growing beyond measure and are , in turn , generating profits which will eventually prove to be merely fictitious . 
over @-@ optimism will give way to disappointment and fear , which , in turn , will result in a stock market and economic crisis . 
the danger is too great for us to ignore . 
we ought to face it regardless of how difficult it may seem . 
modern economic science has provided an exceptional instrument with the Tobin proposal and others , which we will be able to use if we have the political will to make a start . 
that is what we are lacking , Commissioner : the political will to make a start in tackling speculation . 
no longer should there be a place in democracy for the worship of , or for this fatalist approach towards , market forces as adopted by the liberals - and I am sorry that Mr Gasòliba I Böhm has left - as this will only lead to its ruin . 
Madam President , Mr Bolkestein , the ignorance surrounding this debate is unbelievable . 
we needed a Greek Member to finally tell us what this Tobin tax means . 
you reject it flatly because you do not understand the first thing about it . 
that the Right opposes taxes is quite understandable , except that they should never have been allowed to spirit their millions , or rather billions , into Switzerland . 
we all know that ! 
but now I call on you , in all consciousness , to help put a stop to speculative financial transactions and undermining long @-@ term projects with long @-@ term capital . 
it has never been done in south @-@ east Asia , it has never been done in Europe , and I can understand why Mr Karas from Austria has left the chamber , given Austria ' s financial record . 
they are all tarred with the same dirty brush ! 
we need a Tobin tax to give us a fiscal instrument with which we can intervene . 
Madam President , I am totally appalled by the Commission ' s , i.e. Mr Bolkestein ' s , political ignorance ! 
he should perhaps use his position on the Tobin tax to ask himself why he is here at all ! 
Madam President , I too have found parts of the debate quite bizarre . 
it is perhaps not by chance that the Conservative benches have emptied because that which is represented as market freedom no longer has anything in common with the noble principles of the social market economy which has brought so much prosperity to us here in western Europe over recent decades . 
if we continue down this path , and this is the ideology , and declare the financial markets to be sacrosanct and even claim that any intervention in the workings of these markets is contrary to progress and contrary to the growth of the economy , then we will quite certainly be on the wrong tack and that could take on quite dangerous proportions . 
those who own the monetary assets are currently amassing huge fortunes which are again screaming out to be reinvested . 
we have asset inflation of global proportions . 
as a result , speculative bubbles continually arise on the financial markets , causing growing economic instability which , in turn , jeopardises the entire economy . 
and it is precisely the medium @-@ sized undertakings and large numbers of employees who suffer as a result . 
we can take action against this ; it is possible . 
the minimum requirements for this would be for a proper study to be carried out at long last , not only by the Commission , but by reputable economic institutes throughout Europe . 
that too is feasible . 
and then perhaps everyone will stop bandying about arguments which are asking for trouble ! 
it is not correct that the Tobin tax is technically impracticable - it is quite feasible in the age of the computer . 
the fact that tax havens are frequently nothing but hard disk storage space for large European banks here at home must not be ignored . 
in short , we must not allow real capital and speculative capital to become so remote from each other , because otherwise we shall be steering towards situations which we experienced on this continent time and again during the last century and which had catastrophic results . 
Madam President , let us indeed tax money speculation : it does not produce anything new . 
the tax would be targeted at the right place : at the speculators . 
who is going to defend these speculators , when nurses and teachers are paying top rates of tax ? 
Article 73 c of the Treaty establishing the European Union provides scope for taxation on transactions . 
those who oppose taxation on currency dealing are in favour of those tax @-@ recycling centres , the tax havens , of which there are 62 in all . 
the Union should make a tax pact , which any countries could initially be party to . 
the low rate Tobin tax would not cause tax @-@ recycling problems . 
it is strange to claim that if everyone is not included it would be impossible to bring into effect . 
the European Union was founded through the efforts of just a few countries , and you see how we are today . 
the truth is the greatest problem is a political one : they do not want to tax capital , but raise personal taxation instead . 
in the end tax would politicise the global , undemocratic system of financial power . 
ladies and gentlemen , we must challenge the monopoly the world ' s speculative elite have on planning the world ' s economy by remaining outside the tax system . 
Madam President , may I begin by extending a heartfelt thanks to all speakers and , above all of course , Mr Désir , for the fact that this debate is taking place this evening . 
whatever one may think about the topic of debate , it is evident that it is an important one . 
this is why it has been around for years , and it is satisfying that the Commission is being afforded the opportunity this evening to give a response . 
I would like to start by underlining two remarks made by the Member of your Parliament , Mr Gasòliba . 
he said that globalisation is a positive phenomenon , and I share his view . 
I believe that globalisation has helped many countries which , so far , have been on the sideline of the world trade streams to participate in these and be incorporated into the world trade system and , as far as I am aware , no country has ever been worse off by participating in international trade . 
in other words , as indeed already remarked by Mr Gasòliba , globalisation is , in my view , positive , and I am of the opinion that it has contributed to a new international distribution of labour which has been pursued by many people for many years . 
a second remark made by Mr Gasòliba was that there is currently no evidence that the Tobin tax will stabilise the exchange rates . 
I think that he is correct in this regard . 
I too am not aware of any reason why a tax on exchange rate transactions would lead to a stabilisation of exchange rates . 
I am of the opinion that these are two important remarks , and that is why I am reiterating them here . 
Madam President , could I furthermore point out that none of the speakers this evening has drawn a link between the Tobin tax on the one hand and the functioning of the European Union on the other ? 
surely we are all familiar with the Treaty of Rome and know that one of the four freedoms is the freedom of capital movement . 
Madam President , I can assure your Parliament that my day @-@ to @-@ day work consists partly of attempting , in conjunction with my offices and colleagues , to completely integrate the financial markets within Europe , thus enabling financial transactions to run as easily and smoothly as possible . 
in my capacity as Commissioner for the Internal Market , I am , in other words , opposed to all measures which hamper international financial transactions . 
you could hardly expect this Commissioner to agree with a tax which would , in fact , impede international economic movement . 
once again , the Tobin tax is , in my view , at odds with the Treaty of Rome , and this is an important , theoretical objection which has not been considered by any of the speakers this evening . 
Madam President , apart from these - to my mind - quite fundamental observations , there are also practical objections to the Tobin tax , as already underlined by Mr Karas and other speakers . 
it has unfortunately been observed , I have to say , that the European Union has failed to reach agreement internally on specific tax measures . 
this indicates how difficult these dossiers are . 
if we have not been able to reach agreement internally , I wonder whether we will then be able to convince the other trade partners . 
I think that this will be problematic . 
Madam President , Mr Jonckheer has stated that this could be one of the measures for stabilising the financial markets . 
I think , however , that instability is merely a symptom and that we should be looking at the underlying causes . I think that it is preferable to fight the causes rather than attempt to tackle the symptoms when this is probably not possible and when , as already stated , the measure concerned is pretty certainly at odds with the Treaty of Rome . 
in order to remove these causes , one has to look at what is happening in the countries in question . 
is it the case that these countries can boast of what is termed in English ' good governance ' ? 
is it the case that there is low inflation and that there are low interest rates ? 
that the markets for production factors , including the labour market , operate flexibly ? 
that is not always the case . 
so if we want to look into what causes exchange rate instability , then we need to take into account the elements of good governance and focus on these first . 
in addition - and this has also been mentioned already , for example by Mr Gasòliba I Böhm , but also by others - there is a need for more supervision . 
more supervision nationally - supervision by national governments of national banks - and internationally , for example by means of the IMF . 
so I believe the best way to tackle the causes is by ensuring , on the one hand , that good governance is observed in the countries in question and that , on the other hand , there is more supervision nationally and internationally in order to avoid these lapses . 
Madam President , according to various Members of your Parliament , more funding should still be made available for major projects . 
for example , Mr Kreissl @-@ Dörfler spoke in English about ' long @-@ term capital for long @-@ term projects ' - this is an obvious issue . 
Madam President , I should like to leave it here . 
as far as the resolution is concerned , of which I have seen a draft , the Commission will await the vote and will , based on this , determine its stance . 
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate . 
I have received four motions for a resolution , tabled pursuant to Rule 40 ( 5 ) of the Rules of Procedure . 
Madam President , unfortunately I do not have your mastery of the French language . but I would be obliged if Mr Bolkestein would just listen for a minute , which I think he cannot do at the same time as talking to Mrs Randzio @-@ Plath . 
could you please draw his attention to the fact that I have something to say to him ? 
Monsieur Bolkestein , je veux vous dire quelque chose ! 
unfortunately , my Dutch is not as good as yours . but I would rather like to say something else to you . 
Parliament is not taking the initiative and supporting a Tobin type tax just to annoy the Commission . 
we want to examine the possibility of introducing a Tobin tax . 
it will be just one of several instruments and hopefully you will be on our side in this . 
from a political point of view , I always fret when people say , we neither need , want nor can we achieve these things ! 
it is not your job , it is our job to decide on that . 
it also has something to do with the newly awoken self @-@ consciousness of this Parliament . 
I just want to discuss it with you , no more and no less . 
we can do so without going off at other tangents . 
I respect you as a serious Commissioner who wants to take his work seriously . 
please respect us as Members of Parliament who want to take our work seriously , and that includes the Tobin tax ! 
Madam President , an omission appears to have been made . in the list of tabled motions for a resolution which you have just read out , no mention is made of the compromise motion tabled jointly by the PSE , ELDR , GUE / NGL and Greens / EFA Groups and by Mrs Kuntz and Mr Coûteaux . 
adoption of the Minutes of the previous sitting 
Mr President , I simply wanted to pass on some news . there was a terrorist attack this morning in Madrid . 
someone planted a car bomb and one person has died . 
on behalf of my Group , I once again condemn these terrorist acts . 
thank you , Mrs Fraga Estévez . 
we had heard about this regrettable incident . 
unfortunately , the terrorist murderers are once again punishing Spanish society . I note your comments with particular keenness , as you may expect , given that I too am Spanish . 
( the Minutes were approved ) 
resumption of the session 
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Friday , 21 January 2000 . 
Madam President , allow me to remind you that tomorrow will be the second anniversary of the Cermis tragedy . 
two years ago , in Cavalese in Italy , an American aeroplane from the Aviano NATO base cut through the cables of a cable car during a low @-@ flying exercise which exceeded safe limits , causing the deaths of more than 20 Europeans . 
since then , the victims ' families , who have not had the consolation of justice , since the pilot responsible has not faced criminal charges , have been awaiting solicitous financial compensation from the United States at the very least . 
I therefore appeal to the President of this House and the President of the Commission for them to stand surety for immediate compensation from the U.S. authorities , and this is in order to uphold the rights of the victims ' families . 
Mrs Angelilli , thank you . I have taken note of your comment . 
agenda 
the next item is the order of business . 
if you decide to add this debate to the agenda , it will be introduced by speeches from Mr Seixas da Costa , President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , and Mr Romano Prodi , President of the Commission . 
is there anyone who wishes to speak in favour of this proposal ? 
Madam President , I would like to express my support for the decision of the Conference of Presidents , and , since I publicly criticised the presidency in January , I would like to take this opportunity to say , both for myself and on behalf of the Socialist Group , that we now find the presidency ' s statements on this issue to be appropriate , and we agree on their basis , their importance and their form . 
Madam President , it would really be very difficult to imagine a debate which is more in accordance with Rule 50 of our Rules of Procedure . 
this debate is topical , exceptionally important and urgent . 
we therefore believe that the agenda should be amended to include it . 
( applause ) 
is there anyone who wishes to speak against this proposal ? 
Madam President , I shall speak against this proposal on the grounds of a principle which I consider absolutely vital with regard to observance of the Treaties , and with particular regard to Article 7 of the Treaty of Amsterdam . 
Madam President , until now we believed that the European Union was , according to the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Paris founding the European Communities , and subsequently the Union , an association of free , independent , sovereign states . 
even though many developments cast doubt on this , we did believe , in spite of everything , that this was the case and , more recently , reference was made , albeit half @-@ heartedly , to the principle of subsidiarity . 
if you ratify ... 
Mr Gollnisch , excuse me , you have one minute . 
I know that you always take particular care to ensure that the Rules of Procedure are observed . 
Madam President , I thought I had three minutes . 
do forgive me . 
if you ratify this development , then you are ratifying the development of the Union into a body which violates the sovereignty and the freedom of the Member States , and we should then have no option but to withdraw from such a Union . 
we have heard one speaker in favour and one against . 
I shall now , therefore , put this proposal for an amendment to the agenda to the vote . 
( Parliament gave its assent ) 
this debate is therefore added at the top of the order of business . 
topical AND URGENT DEBATE 
the next item is the debate on topical and urgent subjects of major importance . 
talks in Austria on forming a government 
the next item is the debate on the talks in Austria on forming a government . 
I shall immediately give the floor to Mr Seixas da Costa , President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council . 
Madam President , President of the Commission , President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , the Group of the Party of European Socialists hopes that this debate will send three messages to the European public . 
let it be noted that we are completely united on all three counts . 
firstly , we wish to express our total support for , and our solidarity with , the statement of the Presidency @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council and the 14 Member States , because we believe that this statement is in accordance with the common values , and not just the political force , which we have all built together . 
in any event , these common values are in complete opposition to those held by the party ironically known as the Austrian Freedom Party . 
the Europe we are building is born of the bitter experiences we have all suffered , and the Socialist Group condemns the insults which have been directed at the President of the French Republic and the Belgian Government , but also at the Socialists , who are European citizens as well , because , at the moment , the Austrian Socialists are being described as traitors to their country . I will say one thing . 
for many years I was a traitor to my country ; at least that was General Franco ' s view . 
President Guterres was also a traitor in Salazar ' s eyes , and that is something that I believe should also be stated and defended by the PPE @-@ DE . 
I also believe that the Commission , or President Prodi , has acted as a guardian of the Treaties . 
however , I would remind him that , during his inaugural debate , he described the Commission as a European government . 
a government must have more nerve and more courage . 
that is what I am asking President Prodi for at this moment . 
( applause ) 
with all due respect to a Commissioner as effective as Mr Fischler , and given that we have heard contradictory comments , depending on the translation , with regard to a possible request by President Prodi for the resignation of Mr Fischler , I would be very grateful if this point could be clarified in this House . 
secondly , Madam President , we wish to send a very clear message to the Austrian people . 
this is an appeal to the majority of Austrians who have not voted for Haider , who have voted for the clearly democratic options , committed to Europe , and I must point out that Mr Schüssel may have been Minister for Finance , but Chancellor Vranitzky also contributed to Austria ' s integration process . 
we should not be so politically partisan . 
the accession of Austria to the Community was a joint venture . 
we all took part in it , not just one group . 
therefore , Madam President , I believe that it is our right and our obligation to ask the Austrians to reconsider and reflect , because this type of menace , which we have suffered before in Europe , may not only harm Austria , but it may also spread , and I say this bearing history in mind . 
therefore , apart from the apology which Mr Schüssel has made , offering us all kinds of guarantees , as did Chamberlain and Daladier in 1938 in Munich , I would like to know whether the PPE intends to implement measures in relation to the Austrian People ' s Party , if it goes ahead with this mad project . 
thirdly , if we do not stand up to this unnatural alliance , I can assure you that we can forget the European Union ' s main objective - enlargement - because , if we were Czechs , Slovenes or Hungarians , what would we say , faced with a neighbour who judges us on racial grounds and does not want us to enter ? 
I therefore think that this is a great day for European politics to commence . 
we support the Council and we believe that it is our right and our obligation to appeal to the Austrian people to seriously reconsider this completely crazy option . 
( applause from the PSE Group ) 
Madam President , my group welcomes this debate because it is a defining moment . 
this is the first time in the history of the modern European project that we stand at the threshold of seeing the mainstreaming of a party of the extreme right . 
that is deeply disturbing . 
the FPÖ contends that if one reads their literature and their programme , there is much in it that one could share . 
that may be , but let me place on the record today a long and difficult experience which we Liberal Democrats had with the Austrian FPÖ in our Liberal International family . 
as early as 1986 , we had cause to believe that Mr Jörg Haider was not a man whose principles or attitudes were consistent with decency and modern liberalism . 
in November of 1991 , after a long internal debate in Liberal International and many visits to Vienna to discuss issues , we suspended the FPÖ from membership and in July 1993 we expelled them . 
we expelled them then and we continue to reject what Mr Haider stands for now . 
let me share what we learned in that long experience . 
there were many in our ranks who said " read the text " . there were many more in our ranks who said " read the subtext " , " look at the context " . 
words in politics can be incendiary , can be inflammatory , or can be conciliatory . 
we found that Mr Jörg Haider , as a wordsmith , has been a voice for racism and for xenophobia . 
he is a man who plays on fear and who has exploited vulnerability . 
that is why this debate is important - to put down a marker that when you mainstream extremism , something profound is happening in Europe today . 
( applause ) 
I hasten to add that our quarrel is not with the Austrian people . 
we respect the rights of the Austrian people to their own democratic process . 
we defend the rights and constitutional prerogatives of the Austrian people , but we here in the European Parliament have the duty to recall our fundamental values as set out in Article 6 of the Treaty - the values of freedom , democracy and respect for human rights . 
every right @-@ thinking person in this House believes that these are universal and indivisible without regard to colour , class or creed . 
we must promote and defend those rights , all the while saying to the people of Austria : our quarrel is not with you . 
I wish to say with regard to the initiative of the Portuguese Presidency that we support the spirit and the political intention behind it . 
it may not be an ideal initiative in terms of its structure but we accept Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office , that it is rooted in idealism and for that reason we are inclined to support it . 
I share with President Prodi a preference for the Community method and we must look at Article 6 and Article 7 of the Treaty . 
Article 7 talks about the possibility of suspension in the event of serious or persistent breaches of our fundamental values . 
we must find a way as institutions to benchmark and give meaning to this so that it has a reality and a substance . 
then we can work together by the Community method to root out this cancer within our midst . 
I want to say Madame President some words to Mr Schüssel . 
Mr Schüssel is a man with an honourable record in European politics . 
he now intends to ride into government on the back of a political tiger . 
Mr Schüssel - you are assuming a very serious , personal , national and European responsibility . 
that responsibility , which you Mr Schüssel now take on , is to respect the letter and the spirit of the European Treaties . 
finally , Madame President , this is a debate which touches on the heart of our democratic values and institutions and calls to mind that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance . 
on this continent , of all places , with the experience of hateful racism that we have suffered from in the past and at such great cost , we have to insist that today ' s debate is not about interference with the sovereign rights of a State . 
it is a dogged insistence by the democratically elected part of the institutions of this Union that we will not as Europeans countenance turning the clock back . 
( loud applause ) 
Madam President , the events taking place today in Austria are extremely serious . 
for the first time , the European Union is facing the possibility of having representatives in the Council of Ministers and here among us of a party which obviously holds views and puts forward legislation contrary to the values of the European Union . 
I shall make three comments on this matter , to illustrate the gravity of the problem . 
I believe , personally , that this is the first stage , if it does actually take place , in the inclusion of extremists in governments becoming quite commonplace . 
I also believe it gives an extremely negative political message to the vulnerable democracies which are candidates for membership of the European Union and which are going to join us . 
I feel , finally , that this is a case of political decline of the European Union as such and it therefore also sends a negative message outside the Union , when we are speaking in the name of democracy and human rights . 
some people have said that we were interfering in problems internal to Austria . 
some people have said that we were stigmatising the Austrian people and that we were effectively putting words into the mouth of a future government . 
is it really putting words into someone ' s mouth , if we pay attention to what a political leader has been saying for many years , when it shows an obvious tendency to go against everything that we want ? 
( applause ) 
let me thank you , Madam President , for your contribution on behalf of Parliament . 
it was both pertinent and politically intelligent . 
( applause ) 
I should also like to thank the Presidency of the Council for the firm , pertinent and moderate statement it has made . 
( applause ) 
finally I should like to address the party which , whether we like it or not , is the target of our comments : the PPE / DE . 
I would like to address Mr Poettering and also , indirectly , Mr Martens , a compatriot and former colleague . 
I have heard , Mr Poettering , that you have been following events in Austria . 
I would rather have had you anticipate them and , particularly , condemn , on behalf of your party , the very principle of an alliance with people who practice verbal violence , who stigmatise the weak , who hold xenophobic views and who refuse to condemn the Nazi regime . 
( applause ) 
Mr Poettering , I do not doubt your concern for democracy but I believe that you are making a serious political mistake . 
and , to paraphrase one of my renowned fellow Belgians , one of the founders of Europe , Paul @-@ Henri Spaak , I shall say that it is not yet too late for you , but now is the time to change your mind . 
Madam President , in my group ' s opinion , the European Union today faces a political and ethical challenge which is without precedent since the creation of the Union . 
the European Union has certainly previously known situations where there were people in a Member State government whose ideas and actions were in contradiction to the guiding values of the Union . 
however , with Haider and his men , we would see the extreme right , openly racist , anti @-@ Semitic and xenophobic , promoted to the rank of co @-@ ruler of our Community . 
going along with such a prospect would be tantamount to testifying , albeit unwillingly , to the respectability of a political force which is not respectable . 
it would mean making the unacceptable commonplace on the scale of Europe as a whole , it would mean making nonsense of the European institutions ' solemn proclamations on the fundamental values which unite us and which we demand , rightly so , of applicants for membership . 
this is why we support the spirit of the statement made by the presidency and the 14 Member States , as well as that of the President of the European Parliament , insofar as , unlike the lacklustre and ambiguous statement made by the Commission , it aims to make people get the measure of the danger and to provoke a response . 
of course , there can be no question of casting opprobrium upon the people of Austria . 
any action which can be taken must , in our opinion , serve the twofold function of proscribing Haider without , however , isolating Austrian society . 
Democrats in this country now need our support more than ever . 
the great joining of forces in protest in Vienna on 12 November last year must now undergo developments suited to the new situation . 
we must have dialogue with them and join forces with them , stand at their side in order to offer the people of Austria some alternative prospects . 
finally , we must ask ourselves : how did we come to be in this position ? 
certainly , in the first instance , as far as Austrian political leaders are concerned , it is a matter of answering this existential question for the future of democracy , starting with those who have just taken the inordinate risk of giving the extreme right a boost . 
but , beyond that , no one , including the European Union , can , in our opinion , be exempted from asking themselves what grounds there are for permitting an unscrupulous demagogue to exploit the frustrations and fears generated by policies in which too many sectors of the population are disregarded . 
this debate is now before us , but each and every one of us , male and female , is going to assume their responsibilities without delay . 
( applause ) 
Madam President , today we have an appointment with hypocrisy . 
here we have a Council which has managed to flout the treaty and employ a method completely unrelated to Articles 6 and 7 which make it possible to condemn a State in the event of a serious and persistent breach . 
in the event there is absolutely no serious and persistent breach in Austria . 
there are risks , as we are all aware , but in the event there is absolutely no serious and persistent breach . 
if we were to apply the criteria of Articles 6 and 7 or the Copenhagen criteria to the European Union , then , most certainly , this European Union could not become a member , although the countries of Eastern Europe are required to meet them . 
and if we were to speak of serious and persistent breaches , then perhaps we could mention some Member States , such as Italy and France , first and third , respectively , in the list of countries condemned by the Council of Europe and the Strasbourg court . 
we could mention , my Belgian friends , Belgium and the Dutroux case , the dozens upon dozens of children kidnapped , tortured , raped and murdered by leading personalities in this country , where inquiries are bogged down , making no headway . 
we could , if one third of the Members of Parliament so requested , require that the Council and the Commission look into the matter . 
we could ask ourselves why the Austrians are rejecting 10 years , 13 years of party politics which has made one country - Austria - corrupt and rotten , just as it is now corrupting countries such as Italy , Belgium and other European Union Member States . 
we might well wonder why 76 % of Belgian citizens have no faith in the justice system in their country or why 56 % of French citizens have no confidence in their country ' s system of justice , and 53 % of Italian citizens have absolutely no confidence in Italian justice ... 
( the President cut the speaker off ) 
Madame President , my group , the EDD , and especially my party , are very concerned by this debate . 
we cannot , and we do not , support in any way the sentiments and politics of Herr Haider and we deplore his references to the Third Reich . 
we also , however , deplore the fact that your Parliament should consider interfering in the policies of an elected government of any country , especially one which is part of the European Union . 
my party at home are certainly not racists , but we do not accept the rule or interference of the European Union very well . 
are you going to interfere with Great Britain ' s Parliament if we are elected ? 
Madame President , the people of Austria have spoken by electing Herr Haider to their Parliament . 
I believe they gave him 28 % of the vote so there is going to be a coalition government . 
your Parliament , may I suggest , Madame President , should wait to see if the party of Haider has an effect on the policies of that country . 
then , and only then , might you consider if human rights are affected . 
your Parliament may consider measures appropriate to counter that situation and then , Madame President and only then , may your Parliament consider interfering in the constitutional affairs of a country of the European Union . 
Madam President , as a representative of the Freedom Party , I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria . 
my reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights , having a sense of responsibility for one ' s own past , and the stability of democracy . 
Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it , rightly or wrongly . 
the refusal of our government , down through the years , to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War , together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour , have done a great deal to bolster this negative image . 
this FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP , due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999 , when the previous government was voted out of office . 
this is the citizen of a state ' s prerogative , for it is the founding principle of a democracy . 
when the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down , the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support . 
we were offered three ministerial posts - you can read it for yourself in the newspapers - the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here ! 
when we suddenly refused this offer , an inflammatory and rabble @-@ rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day . 
the FPÖ party is established in Austria ' s political landscape . 
the head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments . 
what many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind , and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ ? 
there is prejudice at work here , which - without going into our programme - is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle . 
I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda , as , for example , the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust . 
shame on you Mr Bertinotti ! 
you might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda . 
denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti @-@ fascist ! 
on the contrary , you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did . 
your behaviour stems from your own prejudices , you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose . 
the attacks against Austria ' s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people . 
that is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest . 
the new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy , the rights of the opposition , commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour .... 
( the President cut the speaker off ) 
Madam President , to begin with , I would like to make one thing abundantly clear : Austria is not in danger of experiencing a resurgence of a one @-@ party system or of a totalitarian system of right @-@ wing persuasion . 
Austria is a stable democracy ; one in which human rights and fundamental freedoms are guaranteed under the constitution and are afforded the protection of an independent judiciary . 
Austria is a cosmopolitan country and xenophobia and discrimination have no place there . 
there is nothing unusual about what is happening in Austria : there has been a changeover of power following democratic elections , in consequence of which an old system was voted out and a stable parliamentary majority prepared to carry out the necessary economic and social reforms was sought and found . 
there will be a functioning majority and likewise a functioning opposition . 
the Austrian People ' s Party , which I represent here in this Parliament , used to be and still is a party that has consistently spoken up for the integration of my country into the EU and feels deeply attached to the community of values that is the European Union , and likewise its basic political principles of deepening and enlargement . 
we respect and accept the discussion that is taking place and also appreciate the concerns that are being voiced in many of our Member States as to the way ahead for Austria . 
our understanding springs from the knowledge that our history of the recent past has bequeathed to us a political responsibility of special importance in the present . 
our country was not just the first victim of the Hitler dictatorship , many people were perpetrators too , although I refute any suggestion of collective guilt . 
the ÖVP played no small part in helping Austria find its way into the European Union . 
my country ' s place is not outside the European Union but in it ... 
... , with all the rights and commitments that this entails ! 
any future government must therefore be judged according to the values and principles it professes to in its manifesto , and not according to the prejudgements put about both by political adversaries and the international media . 
a declared belief in human rights , democracy and the rule of law , in an honest reappraisal of Austria ' s role in the past , in passing on information on the gravest crime against humanity in the 20th century , the holocaust , will also be reflected in the fundamental accord underlying a future coalition government between the ÖVP and FPÖ . 
my party can be relied upon to see to it that my country holds firm to the course of European politics and continues to be rooted in the European community of values ! 
( applause ) 
Madam President , Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , Representatives of the Commission , it is a black day for Austria and for Europe . 
not even Mr Sichrovsky ' s web of lies or Mrs Stenzel ' s words of appeasement can do anything to change that . 
for the day has dawned : two irresponsible politicians , consumed with a lust for power , are selling Austria ' s image , political role , and to some extent even its economic interests , down the river ! 
( applause , heckling ) 
they are trading this in for a head of government ' s position and for membership of a government . 
they are just as prepared to take on board the fact that Austria will go from being a revered country to a reviled one , as they are its threatened isolation and thus to some extent that of its citizens . 
I believe - as do many who for years have campaigned against Haider and his brand of politics , and especially my colleagues in the Social Democratic delegation in this Chamber - that the various measures announced by the international community , insofar as they do not have any bearing on the government and its representatives , are grave and also inappropriate . 
however , my criticism - and I freely admit this - my rage , is directed exclusively against those who have provoked these reactions and continue to do so , Messrs Schüssel and Haider and their parties , ... 
... and that includes their representatives in this Parliament . 
Mr Poettering , it is interesting to note that you are in almost as difficult a position as I am , albeit for different reasons , for you are having to defend something that goes against your convictions . 
you are having to defend a certain Mr Schüssel , you are having to consort with Schüssel as he is today and who , as I understand it , was recently told not to come to the representatives of the Christian Democratic party ' s summit meeting . 
the argument that Mr Poettering himself used has come into play , i.e. that it would only be possible to deprive Haider of his mystique if he were to be integrated into the political system . 
however , in my view , he will be no more able or willing to be integrated into this , into our political system , and into the Europe of today , than any other extreme right @-@ wing movement . 
anyone who feeds on prejudice towards foreigners and ethnic minorities and gives succour to these prejudices , whose programme features parochialism and anti @-@ liberalism , who displays loutish behaviour and arrogance in their international relations , and who has never yet distanced themselves clearly and unequivocally from National Socialism , has neither the intention nor inclination to integrate ! 
( applause ) 
this historic weight of guilt falls on the shoulders of the Conservatives for having consorted with the wolf of their own free will and waiting to be devoured . 
that is how the wolf - albeit on account of the self @-@ sacrifice of the ÖVP - is sustained rather than kept in check . 
I understand that Europe and the civilised world wants to have as little as possible to do with such a government . 
however , by the same token , there is another Austria , the one where umpteen thousand people demonstrated against the FPÖ having any involvement in government , and who will continue to demonstrate against this government . 
I urge you to support this Europe and to support and help this Austria ! 
( applause ) 
the more powerful this Europe becomes and the more vigilant it is towards authoritarian tendencies in the Europe of today , the more successful we will be in striking at the roots of right @-@ wing extremism . 
for Europe is and will remain the most potent guarantee we have against xenophobia and demagogy , or even against a relapse into barbarism . 
please support the Austrian people against this government ! 
( applause ) 
Madam President , this is an historic moment , as it is now , at last , quite clear to us all that the European Union has gradually developed into a community of values . 
we see this , now that the government of one Member State is being joined by a party which , as is known , does not respect all these values . 
I would also like to say that the position of the fourteen states emanating from the Council was justified , as in a way this is also a matter of the composition of the government of the European Union , meaning this is also a matter for the Council and not merely an internal affair of Austria ' s . 
as Members of Parliament , we must pay particular attention to the fact that the work begun to establish fundamental rights is more important than ever . 
it is more important than ever that respect for , and non @-@ violation of , human values and the rights of minorities , including the rights of all those who live within the territory of the European Union , form an essential component in the rule of law principle of the EU , and , for this reason , the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be made legally binding . 
it must not be allowed to remain a mere declaration . 
as important is the fact that Austria ' s forces of democracy should be given support , as none of us wishes to isolate the country . 
we know that most Austrians respect these values . 
they have also shown how they feel : not all the demonstrations have taken place outside Austria . 
doubtless there are also a lot of protest voters on the scene that have wanted a change in Austrian policy for a long time . 
I believe Parliament should support these forces of democracy . 
I also appeal to the Austrian President , that he might yet look into all the possibilities for forming a government made up of democratic forces . 
Madam President , I would simply like to stress the value of the attitude that the leader of our group , Francis Wurtz , reminded us of just now . 
I welcome the statements by the Presidency of the Council and the position of the 14 countries which have rejected official contact with an Austrian Government that includes Jörg Haider ' s party . 
the fact that we are stressing this is all the more important because , as you know , we essentially disagree with the policies made by Europe , with its economic and social policies , its democratic deficit and the Member States ' involvement in the terrible war in the Balkans . 
our normal disagreement further emphasises our appreciation today : this is extraordinary because the danger of a resurgence of an irrational , neo @-@ nazi element in Europe is extraordinary . 
this danger does not concern Austria , it concerns Europe . 
we are talking about us , not Austria . 
we know the social causes which contribute , along with unemployment and instability , to fuelling tendencies towards this ; we know the accompanying cultural causes - xenophobia , racism - but with the inability and unwillingness of these extreme right @-@ wing groups to settle accounts with nazism , we cannot fail to point out the possibility of an explosive mixture being created in Europe . 
not only the Alpine region , but all our countries are involved : the conditions are being created whereby democracy and European civilisation may once again come under threat . 
the position taken by the presidency has shown that it is aware of this tragedy for civilisation . 
Europe is showing that it has not forgotten Auschwitz ; Europe is coming face to face with the suffering of the past . 
now , though , it should follow through with its actions , and the first to follow through should be the Commission , which , however , has been obscure and weak on this , making the value of the presidency ' s position even more apparent . 
this is the change we must impose on the Commission ' s action . 
Madam President , despite the fundamental democratic principle of the respect for human rights and the freedom and sovereignty of peoples , which opposes fascism , nazism or communism , both new and old , and despite all the previous speakers talking about the sovereignty of the Austrian people , we are today witnessing this sovereignty being denied by Parliament . 
in the manifesto of the Austrian Democratic Freedom Party , there is nothing to justify the accusations that it is attacking the principles of freedom , democracy and respect for human rights , fundamental freedoms or the rule of law , enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaties . 
I would , however , like to draw your attention to the fact that the President @-@ in @-@ Office , who has been so critical of Austria , has recently consigned the inhabitants of Macao to the sovereign rule of the People ' s Democratic Republic of China . 
perhaps , in order to strengthen the Union ' s democracy , it would now be appropriate to isolate Austria and criminalise a party that was democratically elected by the Austrian citizens , while bringing Turkey and its " Grey Wolves " into Europe . 
Madam President , we are debating an extremely serious issue . 
we are debating nothing less than the presence in a Member State ' s government of a political force whose doctrine and principles are incompatible with the conceptual and moral bases of the Union enshrined in its founding Treaties . 
a simple reading of chapter 4 , article 1 of the Austrian Freedom Party ' s manifesto is enough to make any democratic conscience shudder . 
the view that ethnicity is the defining factor of a nation and the claim that one ethnic group has superiority over others , as is written here , revives old ghosts of the century which we have just left behind , which some historians have described as the century of horrors ; horrors which the unacceptable philosophy behind Mr Haider ' s manifesto has stirred up once again , to our amazement . 
of course Austria is a sovereign nation and of course we must respect the principle of non @-@ interference in the internal affairs of a Member State . 
however , that is not the problem . 
the question is whether the Union can remain indifferent to the formation of a government in a Member State which includes such a party . 
our answer to this crucial question is no . 
( applause ) 
Konrad Adenauer once said - and he knew what he was saying - that the surest way to pacify a tiger was to allow it to devour you . 
history is a compendium of events which could have been avoided . 
therefore , Madam President , the Union and the Assembly must send an unequivocal message , rejecting of the tiger of intolerance , xenophobia and totalitarianism , so as not to add one more mistake to the long list of abdications , renunciations and opportunism which mark Europe ' s past and for which we have paid such a heavy price . 
( loud applause ) 
Madam President , the European Union was built upon the idea ' never again ' , meaning never again do we want to see xenophobia , concentration camps , anti @-@ Semitism , heightened nationalism or war . 
the one and only significance of the European Union is the will to transcend the atrocious history of the twentieth century which gave the coup de grâce to any ideal of humanism within the heart of Europe , and which is still highly topical today . 
it is not true to say that , when a government forms an alliance with neo @-@ Fascists somewhere in Europe , this is merely a question of national sovereignty . 
for this Union of ours is not a grouping of neighbouring nation states who are simply coming to mutual arrangements to improve their collective circumstances . 
it is a Community that is destined to exist , in which , when the main thing is under threat , when values are under threat , all democrats must bend over backwards to find solutions to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never made again . 
let us learn the lessons of the past . 
in the thirties , when Adolf Hitler was democratically elected , although with a minority , many people thought that it was not as bad as all that and , Mr Poettering , in France , a number of men and women , on the right wing but perhaps of other political persuasions too , thought , ' Better Hitler in France than the Front Populaire . ' 
they put their own petty squabbles first , and the rest is history . 
we must make a rapid , strong and united response . 
I would have liked to hear your discussion with the Austrian President , Mr Poettering . we are well aware that he is very embarrassed today at the dirty deal that government has done in forming such an alliance . 
so our response must be rapid and strong . 
of course , the Treaty provides us with a barrier when things become intolerable ; I was almost going to say ' irreparable ' . 
history has taught us that Fascists start to blow hot and cold : using heated words first , in populist , xenophobic speeches , and then cool words in order to make themselves acceptable to institutions and to infiltrate them gradually , poisoning them , until the day they start to take action . 
and when that day comes , it is too late . 
so our Treaty has made provision for barriers for the time when it is too late , but we are not at that point : today we have to take steps to ensure that we do not get to that point . 
we must therefore find a political solution . 
I support the Council proposals in this , while deploring a certain lack of strength , a certain spinelessness , on the part of the Commission which will , however , have to be vigilant on a day @-@ by @-@ day basis , with determination over time , since Fascists count on the spinelessness of democracy , they count on time to wear us down and they hope to impose their views in the end . 
our response must be rapid . 
if today we do not staunchly support the Council , then history will judge us , saying that we achieved the political equivalent of the Munich Agreement . 
Madam President , I am pleased about the fact that , in Austria , the will of the large majority of the people is being respected and that this formation of government constitutes , in my eyes , a huge victory for democracy . 
let there be no doubt about it : we decline with thanks a Europe which develops into a kind of " big brother " and which keeps watch over left @-@ wing political correctness in one Member State or another in a Stalinist way and using Stalinist methods . 
European democracy and Austrian democracy should not receive any lessons from anybody and certainly not from a Belgian Government that embraces corrupt parties financed by arms dealers and that appointed the leader of such a corrupt party , which was condemned by the court , to the post of European Commissioner . 
today , we thank the Austrian people for this democratic triumph which is important to all nations within Europe and to anyone who feels particularly strongly about freedom and freedom of speech . 
Madam President , this debate was opened by Mr Da Costa , who merely confirms that the EU presidency is trying to influence the composition of a government of one of the Member States . 
this debate , and the background to it , reinforced the point that the Council , the Commission and this Parliament itself are dominated by Socialists . 
my delegation of 37 Conservative and Unionist Members from the United Kingdom reject absolutely the underlying philosophy , programme and tone of Austria ' s Freedom Party . 
we share the widespread outrage at its attitude to history , in particular World War II , but also its policies on enlargement , on immigration , on race and its attitude to the European Union itself . 
we were also outraged , however , at the tolerance of the left for the tyranny , the terror and the excesses of the former USSR . 
even today , surely it is high time for the Party of European Socialists to break their fraternal links with China ' s Communist Party . 
not a word was said by these same EU governments about coalition governments involving fellow @-@ travelling communists in French or Italian governments , or in German state governments , or even the British government ' s willingness to promote those with terrorist associations as ministers in Northern Ireland today . 
this , Madam President , is the hypocrisy of the left . 
so we condemn that hypocrisy and the double standards , especially of the British government and the other largely socialist heads of EU governments and include that of the United States . 
we should recognise , however , that the democratic process sometimes produces uncomfortable results . 
this requires action to address the underlying causes , including an examination of the electoral process itself . 
that should be our task , not political posturing . 
Madam President , Representative of the Council , Commissioner , a week ago , the big international Holocaust Conference ended in Stockholm . 
its aim was to combat the forgetfulness and the evil in today ' s society which takes the form of xenophobia and neo @-@ nazism . 
it would be an insult to the idea behind this conference and to the whole of the international community to invite , at this time , into the institutions of the EU , a xenophobic party which flirts with Nazi ideas . 
secondly , I want to say that we must be consistent in our own behaviour and in our evaluations . 
we demand of the candidate States and of the countries with which the EU cooperates under the Lomé Agreement that they should respect human rights and show tolerance towards their neighbours . 
we must do the same as far as we ourselves are concerned . 
that is why we are reacting against this carry @-@ on in Austria . 
it is not acceptable to continue as if nothing had happened . 
we are at a watershed in the history of the European Union . 
the Union is not only an economic community but also a community of values , something which we take seriously . something has happened . 
the European Union is in the process of finding its soul and getting some steel in its spine . 
Madam President , as everyone has said , this is a very important day . it is the day of the first debate of European political life . 
and this is not pure chance . 
I feel that today ' s meeting is not a meeting of Europe , our institutions , with Austria or Mr Haider ' s party . 
it is the meeting of Europe with itself , with its raison d ' être , with the reasons why we are here in this Chamber . 
this Chamber was not made for goods , it was not made for money . 
this Chamber , and the European institutions , were build to uphold values , morality and a certain spirit . 
in the twentieth century , we have had experience of the fact that democracies can find themselves at risk , and morality , values and the spirit which I mentioned can be mortally affected by viruses which have just one name : nationalist glorification , populism and the concept of racial superiority . 
the fact is that it is enough to read the manifesto of Mr Haider ' s party , the FPÖ , to find nationalist glorification , populism and racial superiority in every chapter . 
reading only one sentence which my friend , Mr Vidal @-@ Quadras , has previously mentioned , " The nation is defined by its location , culture and race , locally , ethnically and culturally . " 
well , we cannot accept such statements . 
if Europe has any meaning , and - my friends will pardon me telling them - if Christian democracy has any meaning , if the history of Christian democracy has any meaning , then it must declare itself radically opposed to the statements made in this manifesto and , whatever excellent reasons are given whenever history serves the same dish up again , must reject any agreement with this type of ideology and this type of organisation . 
( applause ) 
Madam President , we the Belgian Christian Democrats are concerned as , fortunately , are a great many other Members too . 
the coalition which is being created in one of the Member States is clearly an Austrian affair but undoubtedly has a European dimension too . because what is it that unites us in Europe ? 
surely it is the values and principles of freedom , democracy and respect for human rights , more than anything . 
the Austrian Freedom Party leader , Mr Haider , has repeatedly repudiated these values . 
he also repudiates the basic forms of diplomatic politeness . 
he is a dangerous man . 
the Christian Democratic parties in my country have made up their minds a long time ago and they stick to their decision to listen to the protests of extreme @-@ right voters but never to negotiate with extreme @-@ right leaders . 
values should take precedence over power . 
we deplore , therefore , what is happening in Austria . 
in fact , we were shaken by it . 
we are extremely disappointed . 
as a last resort , we would ask the ÖVP to look into alternatives . 
we keep reminding them about Article 6 of the Treaty . 
we continue to fight against the trivialisation of the extreme right . 
if , despite this , the coalition goes ahead , we would urge the ÖVP party members to ensure that the principles and values which underlie European integration are observed in political programmes , both in word and deed . 
Madam President , Austria awaits a heavy responsibility . 
Madam President , it is clear that we in this Parliament are very largely agreed on rejecting Mr Haider and his politics , but it is equally clear that opinion differs as to the most effective way of opposing this brand of politics . 
have you stopped to ask what kind of effect the debate we are having here and the statement delivered by the Council Presidency last weekend are having in Austria itself ? 
have you stopped to ask whether or not we will also be responsible for the way in which the political situation unfolds from now if we set ourselves up to pass judgement on it here ? 
have you stopped to ask what would happen if the wish of a certain fellow MEP was to be fulfilled and elections were to be held in Austria in the course of the next few days ? 
from all accounts , this would only serve to strengthen Haider . 
who would want this to happen ? 
is it not our responsibility to give thought to how we should tackle this brand of politics ? 
Europe is a community of law . 
democracy , respect for human rights and rule of law are amongst the principles that we must uphold . 
one of the precepts of democracy is that we should not disapprove of electoral outcomes but respect them , and that is why we must respect the fact that the Austrians , by virtue of their political culture , voted as they did . 
it is for reasons of constitutionality that the President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council ought not to have made the statement he did , and in a manner that goes against the Treaty . 
it would be politically astute not to isolate the ÖVP but to support it as an undeniably democratic , constitutional and well @-@ known European party , so as to be equally certain that Austria will continue to be a Member of this European Community , and that is why we must give the ÖVP our support in this difficult situation , and isolation would be altogether the wrong line to take ! 
( applause ) 
Madam President , they say , where I come from , ' it ' s three times for a Welshman ' , and three times , as I think you will discover in the course of that debate , I signified my desire to respond very briefly to what has been an excellent , and on several occasions , a moving debate . 
first of all , could I express my thanks on behalf of President Prodi and my colleagues in the Commission for the support and understanding offered by several Members of the House to the position taken by the Commission in the statement that we made yesterday . 
I must respond also to the fact , of course , that there were references during the debate - and I use some of the words employed - to the ambiguity , the complacency and the fragility of the Commission ' s opinion . 
I am duty- bound to say to this House , there is no ambiguity or fragility or complacency in the opinion offered , or indeed the action taken , by the Commission on this issue . 
we made explicit reference yesterday morning in our statement , as did the President this afternoon , to the fact that we share the concern demonstrated by fourteen Member States in their statement on Monday . 
secondly , we said , in very specific terms , that we will work closely with all Member States in examining the situation as it develops in Austria . 
thirdly , we expressed , in very explicit terms , that we will uphold without fear or favour the values and the provisions of Article 6 of the Treaty ; and that we will take our part under Article 7 of the Treaty in ensuring that those values of liberty and democracy and fundamental freedoms are upheld . 
there is no complacency , no fragility and no ambiguity about any of that at all . 
and , when I say that the Commission took that view , I include my dear colleague Franz Fischler , who is from Austria ; and who , once again , demonstrated his integrity and his independence as a Member of the European Commission , under oath , in being part of that statement that we made yesterday morning . 
anyone , therefore , who invites Franz Fischler to his house to somehow account for the fact that his nationality is Austrian , should examine their own motives in the context of a debate , which has been necessarily shadowed by references to xenophobia and even more lethal evils in this world . 
I say that in friendship and honour to my friend and colleague , Franz Fischler . 
could I also say , Madam President , that the understanding of the presidency , the Portuguese presidency , for our position , was absolutely demonstrated in the clearest terms by Mr Da Costa when he said , and I quote him , that ' Portugal and the other Member States want to ensure that the working of the Community machine is not affected by the current situation ' . 
that surely is in everyone ' s interests . 
in order to ensure that the Treaty is upheld and that we sustain what was described as the Community machine , we are following the course of action which was set down in our statement yesterday . 
we will continue to do that , Madam President , without fear or favour . 
that is our duty . 
it is also a matter of conviction . 
my final point is this . we understand the context of this essential debate . 
there are several people here who like myself for many years past have become familiar with Herr Haider ' s offensive statements , the xenophobia of many of his policy elements and the strategy that he has developed of alternating aggressive statements with apologies , sometimes on successive days . 
we understand that , and we recall too the sometimes short and selective memory that he has of Nazism . 
and , when we recall that , like many others on all sides of this House , my and my colleagues ' instincts are naturally aroused . 
however , the Commission has to act on the basis of values and law and not only on the basis of instinct . 
and that is why we came to the conclusion we reached yesterday morning . 
that is why we sustain that conclusion as we continue to uphold the values and the law . 
without fragility , without complacency , without ambiguity , but in the service of the whole Union and every Member State of the Union and its people . 
we will continue to do that with energy and with consistency and as Mr Cox said in the debate , ' necessarily with acute vigilance ' . 
I wonder , since Mr Da Costa has been listening to these remarks from the back of the Chamber , whether Mr Kinnock could confirm that the Commission supports the view explicitly stated by Mr Da Costa today and in the recent statement by the Presidency on behalf of the heads of government . 
does the Commission support the Council ? 
thank you , Commissioner Kinnock . 
I think that we have just had a great political debate , equal to the situation and to what could be expected of it . 
thank you , ladies and gentlemen . 
the debate on topical and urgent subjects of major importance is closed . 
the vote will take place at 11 a.m. tomorrow . 
recourse to the precautionary principle 
the next item is the Commission statement on recourse to the precautionary principle . 
I want to start by saying that I am pleased to be presenting this communication on the use of the precautionary principle , and it has been written together with David Byrne and Erkki Liikanen . 
the precautionary principle is not a new concept . 
it has been used by the Community for some time now in a range of policy areas , environmental , human , animal and plant health ; and it is explicitly mentioned in the environmental provisions of the EC Treaty since Maastricht . 
it also appears in a range of international texts , for example , the Rio Declaration and most recently the Bio @-@ Safety Protocol . 
the essence of the precautionary principle is clear . 
it involves taking action in a given policy area when the science is not clear , but where there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potential risks are big enough to require action . 
however , the use of the precautionary principle has been increasingly in the spotlight in recent years . 
events such as the BSE and dioxin crisis have stimulated a growing public debate about the circumstances in which precautionary action is justified and necessary . 
in view of this growing interest , the Commission therefore considered that it would be useful to present a communication to set out its position on the use of the precautionary principle . 
the basic aim of the communication is twofold . 
to explain in a clear and coherent way how the Commission applies , and intends to apply , the precautionary principle in its management of risk and to set out guidelines for its application based on reasoned and coherent principles . 
we also hope that the communication will help to build a better common understanding of how to manage risks and to dispel fears that the precautionary principle might be used in an arbitrary way or as a disguised form of trade protectionism . 
the Commission ' s starting point in applying the precautionary principle is the need to ensure a high level of protection in the fields of environmental , human , animal and plant health . 
of course , this objective cannot be used to justify irrational or arbitrary measures , but it does mean that action can still be taken even in situations where the science is unclear . 
as such , while the precautionary principle does not involve the politicisation of science , as some have alleged , it does take us to the crossroads between science and politics . 
the initial decision to apply the precautionary principle depends largely on the level of protection sought and the level of risk that decision @-@ makers are prepared to accept for society . 
it is therefore political by nature . 
however , the measures that may subsequently be taken must obviously comply with the general principles applicable to risk management and the guidelines for applying the precautionary principle are therefore the key element of the paper . 
measures taken must be proportional to the chosen level of protection - that is , we do not use the sledgehammer to crack a nut . 
they must be non @-@ discriminatory in their application , that is measures should not differentiate on the basis of geographical origin . 
and they must be consistent with similar measures already taken . 
for example , if one product has been approved , similar products should also be approved . 
all these elements have to apply cumulatively . 
it is also important to bear in mind that there are a wide range of measures , which can be taken in applying the precautionary principle . 
for example , a research programme , public information campaigns , recommendations and so on . 
applying the precautionary principle does not , therefore , automatically imply a ban . 
this communication does not pretend to be the final word on this issue ; however , it is the first time that the Commission has presented a structured presentation of the principle and its operational use . 
by setting out in some detail how the Commission applies , and intends to apply , the precautionary principle , we hope to be able to clarify the situation at Community level and to contribute to the ongoing debate at European and international level . 
Mr President , Commissioner , thank you very much for your statement . 
I have three short questions , the first being as follows . 
we have been awaiting a common communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle for a very long time now and it was anything but clear in the past as to whether the Commission speaks with one voice . 
does the document you have presented here today also accord with the opinion of your colleagues the Commissioners for Industry , Foreign Trade , Competition and the Internal Market ? 
I am sure that your answer to this will be " yes " but I would be grateful if you could tell me if these gentlemen are also aware as to what the consequences of this will be ? 
my next question , Mrs Wallström , is when will you begin to apply this principle to legislation ; to legislation pertaining to chemicals or other sectors , for example ? 
lastly , will we be able to recognise when this principle has been applied in legislation ? 
in other words , will each proposal contain an additional sheet stating that checks have been made as to the application of the precautionary principle and the following conclusion has been reached ? 
. 
thank you very much , Dagmar Roth @-@ Behrendt , for these questions . 
of course , this is shared by the whole Commission . 
this is a common communication which was written by the three of us , David Byrne , Erkki Liikanen and myself , but it has been passed unanimously in the Commission today . 
it received strong support from the rest of the Commissioners and it has been through an interservice consultation in the whole of the Commission . 
so we have really worked through this document and I am sure that they are all able to describe the guidelines and the principles as laid down in this document . 
yes , I would say we already use this way of working with different , difficult issues like a new chemical strategy for example . 
and , I am sure that we will also mention it explicitly when we work with this principle . 
we have just recently had a case of using the precautionary principle when it came to ban phthalates in soft PVC toys ; and of course , we apply it in several different environmental areas . 
it has been mainly used in the environmental field , but , of course also when it comes to human health . 
so , we will try to be very clear about how and when to use it . 
Mr President , Commissioner , regarding the relationship between science , on the one hand , and applying the precautionary principle on the other , the communication states that invoking that precautionary principle always requires a political decision if there is a lack of scientific evidence . 
needless to say , this accords science a great deal of power . 
we might ask ourselves , what kind of scientists will supply this documentation and what do they stand for ? 
the communication also states that the precautionary principle can be applied , provided there is a sufficient recognised minority of scientists . 
I would like to ask , what is , then , the definition of a recognised minority ? 
how would you describe this ? 
what establishes a recognised minority ? 
if a political decision is involved , I would also like to ask : who takes this political decision ? 
the Commission ? 
the Council ? 
and to what extent will the European Parliament be able to play a role in this ? 
what is the role of the scientific committees ? 
what , also , will be the role of the food authorities which you are about to set up ? 
finally , will this whole decision @-@ making process be carried out in a transparent , public way ? 
these are my three questions . 
. 
yes , Mr President , that is true . 
there were many and difficult issues and not always crystal clear , but I will try to answer some questions . 
who will take the decision , who are the decision @-@ makers ? 
well , that depends on who the legislators are . 
this is part of risk management . 
they have to look at , for example , the concerns of people in relation to a special issue , and they have to judge from what is known about the scientific evidence in a certain case . 
however , it is true that it does not need a big majority of the scientific community to be able to use the precautionary principle . 
it can be used on evidence from a minority or where science is incomplete . 
that is , of course , where you strike a balance between this principle as a political tool and science . 
it is not always easy to describe exactly how this process is done , but there is no question of changing the scientific base . 
we use the experts to get as much scientific information and facts as possible before we take a decision ; and that should also be done in the future . 
you have to see this as a tool for risk management . 
you have to decide whether you want to put people in danger , for example , or if you want to protect the environment ; and you have to look at the science that is available . 
you have to assess all that and evaluate the science . 
then you decide to take a measure or not , to take action or not . 
so , there is no answer to all your questions but this does not change the system of the scientists that we use today or the system of experts that we use today . 
Mr President , I have a question concerning an actual , concrete case in which it should be possible to apply the precautionary principle . 
it is about brominated flame retardants . 
it is a fact that these substances are now being discovered . there are increased concentrations of them in both people and the environment . 
there are many people who maintain that they entail major risks , while others question how large the risks involved in these substances really are . 
recently , both Sweden and Denmark urged the Commission in the Council of Ministers to take the initiative and ban brominated flame retardants . 
I am wondering , therefore , if you are preparing such a ban and if it would not fit in very well with your approach to the precautionary principle itself to come up with such an initiative . 
. 
( SV ) Mr President , thank you very much , Mr Sjöstedt , for this question . 
the issue of brominated flame retardants is an important one . 
it was raised quite recently in the Environment Council by a number of ministers who want the Commission to look at what basis there might be for a ban and at what might need to be done . 
we are in the process of looking into this question and assessing what knowledge we have today and what it is possible to do . 
allow me to remind you , however , that use of the precautionary principle does not need to be synonymous with there being a total ban . 
there may be a series of different measures which can be taken . 
it ought not , therefore , to be immediately interpreted as a ban . 
where brominated flame retardants are concerned , there may eventually be a ban , but it is important to say that the precautionary principle permits the whole spectrum of political measures and initiatives to be taken . 
this issue is extremely topical . 
the Commission is to do its job and give proper attention to the issue before we come back with an assessment of what needs to be done . 
you said that the precautionary principle should not be used as a disguised trade barrier . 
is the understanding of this point the same on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean ? 
I think we are going to have problems particularly with hormone @-@ treated beef and genetically modified crops . 
will the Americans take the same view of this point as we do ? 
. 
( SV ) Mr President , I am pleased to be able to tell you that , in Montreal , we have just signed a protocol concerning bio @-@ safety . 
we succeeded there in agreeing , at an international forum , as to the definition of the precautionary principle . 
I consider it to be a breakthrough that we succeeded in concluding this protocol . I believe it will set the trend for future discussions concerning the precautionary principle . 
we are going to be able to use this as an example of how the precautionary principle is to be interpreted . 
it is , moreover , also accepted as an important and effective tool . 
Mr President , I have two questions . I shall try to be very brief indeed . 
the first question concerns the implementation of the precautionary principle . 
as I have understood it , there has been a certain lack of clarity in some respects as to how this is to be understood . 
is it the case that a risk assessment is firstly to be carried out , including a cost @-@ benefit analysis ? 
in that case , I am rather concerned , because the idea was really that a cost @-@ benefit analysis should not be used as a tool for deciding whether the precautionary principle should be introduced . instead , the precautionary principle should come first . 
my second question concerns the burden of proof . 
I remember Margot Wallström being introduced as Commissioner in the Committee . 
at that time , she was talking about the desire for a reversed burden of proof . in other words , a product ' s manufacturer is to demonstrate whether or not the product is hazardous . 
I want to know whether this also applies in the document which the Commission has presented now . 
. 
( SV ) Thank you , Mrs Schörling . 
these are two important questions , and it is good that I should be given the opportunity to clarify them . 
no , one must not begin by carrying out a cost @-@ benefit analysis . 
instead , the latter should be based upon an assessment of what it is we know , of what science has to tell us and of how we should view the product concerned in the light of the risks we judge there to exist for the environment or for the health of human beings or animals . 
when , on the other hand , the decision has been made to take a certain measure , the one chosen ought to be cost @-@ effective so that there is in fact no resort to measures which are wholly unreasonable given their degree of effectiveness . 
it is not , therefore , the case that one must begin with a cost @-@ benefit analysis . 
the second question concerns the reversed burden of proof . 
it is perfectly correct that we need to apply this in certain cases . 
I have used chemical strategy as a good example of an area in which we need to do this . 
there , however , we are concerned with that particular area , whereas it may be said that the present communication concerning the precautionary principle is horizontal in the sense that it concerns the full range of specific technical areas that are of political concern . 
therefore , the issues of the reversed burden of proof and of what the burden of proof is to look like are not especially discussed in this context . instead , it is a question of political decision @-@ making and of the bases for this . 
it is , however , perfectly correct that , when it comes , for example , to chemicals , we must ensure that we obtain a reversed burden of proof . 
Mr President , I believe that the precautionary principle needs to be quite radical in order to work , otherwise we shall always be confused by all the different interpretations possible . 
I will give an example : a fungicide has been proven to cause babies to be born blind . it is therefore a teratogenic substance . 
very well , it is a fungicide , it kills off mould . 
this teratogenicity has been demonstrated by just one English laboratory , perhaps because it is the only one that has carried out tests . 
now , in my opinion , given that this is such a serious risk to health , the precautionary principle lays down that this product should immediately be taken off the market , which New Zealand has done , for example . 
so I want to put this question to you . when human health is at stake , or there is the possibility that human health will be seriously affected , should we not perhaps carry out a cost @-@ benefit analysis ? 
the cost of a baby being born blind is too high ; there are no benefits that can compensate for this . 
in short , Commissioner , I would therefore like to know whether in this case , the precautionary principle as you understand it , would in any case , require the product to be taken off the market , until such time as another laboratory provides evidence to the contrary . 
. 
( SV ) Mr President , no one wants more than I do to see a situation in which we are able to apply the precautionary principle in such a way that it is seen as radically protecting people ' s health and the environment . 
obviously , I cannot adopt a stance on this special case and on the particular product which has been mentioned here , but I shall go directly back and see what I can obtain in the way of information about this particular case . 
the truth , of course , is that a great many Member States , and no doubt other nations too , have taken measures to protect their populations ' health which amount to using the precautionary principle , even if it has not always been called that . 
naturally , it is not in the first place a question of cost ; there can in fact be an enormous cost to society if the decision to take a particular measure is avoided . 
nor must it be a case of sitting and calculating the value of a human life over and against the cost of taking a particular measure . 
I think , however , it is quite obvious that when it is eventually time to decide upon a particular step to be taken , it is often the case that there are many different courses of action to choose between . 
in those circumstances , consideration should be given to what is likely to produce the best result . 
I cannot forbear telling you about an occasion when the expression cost @-@ effective was used by people whom one cannot perhaps imagine using it , namely when I was on a visit to Africa . 
at a hospice for AIDS patients , I met two Irish Catholic nuns who were caring for dying AIDS patients . 
they were the first to say that , each day , they must think about doing what is most cost @-@ effective because resources had to suffice for their poor patients there . we must be very careful about how we use resources . 
I believe we can learn something from this . 
we must , of course , always ensure that we use our resources in the most effective manner and in such a way that they provide the broadest possible help . 
as is also explained in the present communication , it is not therefore correct that one must first begin with some sort of cost @-@ benefit analysis . 
consideration should be given to what science is offering in the way of knowledge , and this should be used as an important political tool for protecting the environment and people ' s health . 
Mr President , it is a rare honour to be given a second opportunity to ask questions ! 
Commissioner , I would like to come back again to my first question , when I asked about the other Commissioners , for it may have sounded as though I was in jest . 
indeed you responded in kind , as I knew you would do . 
I would like to draw your attention to something Mr Goodwill asked , that is to the connections we make between the precautionary principle and the world beyond the European Union . 
I have good reason for asking this . 
as you rightly said , the precautionary principle is needed in precisely those areas where , as yet , there is no scientific evidence . 
how can we ensure that we will not be laying ourselves open to attack at any time , for example by our partners in the USA , on account of the bio safety protocol not being adequate to their purposes ? 
how can we be sure that those of your colleagues responsible for industrial policy and foreign trade policy , will not , as they did on the last few occasions with your predecessors , keep pulling the carpet from underneath you ? 
that is exactly what it is all about , otherwise we might as well not bother talking about the precautionary principle here , Commissioner ! 
Mr President , I think it is extremely important to point to the present communication ' s guidelines for using the precautionary principle as a way of repudiating assertions to the effect that we always want to use the principle for protectionist reasons . 
I am certain that we are going to have more conflicts , for example with the United States . we should not be so naïve as to think otherwise . 
ever since we signed this protocol in Montreal , we nonetheless have international recognition and a common definition written into a protocol dealing with the environment , health and trade . 
this constitutes a good example , therefore . 
we should be in no doubt that conflicts may arise in the future too , but we can now show that we do not use the precautionary principle arbitrarily . 
we now have a number of guidelines for using the precautionary principle , and we have increased support among our respective peoples for using it , something which is clearly established in the present communication . 
thank you , Commissioner . 
the focus on the political precautionary principle means that we have being discussing it for almost two hours and this topic is now being viewed , so to speak , as more than an ordinary aspect of administration , even though , as we have been able to establish from the interventions , questions and replies , it is a topic which we believe to be of considerable importance . 
the debate is closed . 
Intergovernmental Conference 
the next item is the report ( A5 @-@ 0018 / 2000 ) by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen , on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs , on the convening of the Intergovernmental Conference [ 14094 / 1999 - C5 @-@ 0341 / 1999 - 1999 / 0825 ( CNS ) ] . 
Mr President , I will begin by thanking the Portuguese Presidency and the Commission for all our recent very useful contacts . 
let me also once more thank my co @-@ rapporteur Mr Leinen for our excellent collaboration . 
the Intergovernmental Conference that is about to begin is important , both in a general sense and more particularly in view of the imminent enlargement . 
the work of the Conference will determine the structure and method based on which Europe will be functioning in the twentieth century . 
for the European Union of the future to be able to function more effectively , more democratically and with complete transparency , clearly what we need is an extensive and in @-@ depth reform of the institutions and the way they work . 
the first and substantive prerequisite for achieving that reform is the agenda based on which the Intergovernmental Conference is to begin its work . 
from the decisions made at the Helsinki Summit , it emerges that the agenda agreed there is unsatisfactory and does not guarantee the essential and substantive changes required for creating a more functional Europe , one that is more effective , more democratic and more transparent . 
this is because the Helsinki agenda is limited to consideration only of the three issues that relate in a fragmentary way to the structure and operation of just two of the European Union ' s institutional bodies . 
I will not repeat which ones , because everyone knows . 
my conclusion is justified on the one hand by the constant and sometimes very insistent demands of the peoples of Europe and on the other hand by the huge scale of the great enterprise in which the European Union is already involved , namely enlargement . 
granted this , the new Intergovernmental Conference must not fail to include in its agenda issues which , properly addressed , would ensure the correct operation of all and not just some of the European Union ' s institutions . 
just as it also must not fail to include everyday issues which , for that very reason , are highly visible to the European public . 
in its numerous debates and its reports so far the European Parliament has openly supported the convening of the Intergovernmental Conference . 
at the same time , however , I am asking for it to include issues that improve and complement the reform , I repeat , of all the institutional bodies as well as issues that are of direct concern and interest to the European public such as health , energy , culture , transport and even tourism . 
whether or not the agenda will ultimately be widened is still the subject of debate and on this point I would like to extol the political conduct of the Portuguese Presidency , which has repeatedly made a commitment to the European Parliament to make the necessary efforts towards that end . 
all the same , whether or not more issues will be considered must in no way diminish the importance attributed by every Member State to the Intergovernmental Conference . 
this is because the institutional framework within which Europe will operate in the future is a foundation of European integration and is therefore a matter of the greatest national importance for every one of the Union ' s Member States . 
in light of what I have said , I ask Parliament to approve the opinion which Mr Leinen and I have put before you , so that on 14 February , the work of the Intergovernmental Conference can begin and our two representatives , Mr Brok and Mr Tsatsos , can proceed with the difficult task that awaits them with the European Parliament ' s backing . 
the same applies to the Commission and I would again like to thank Commissioner Barnier for his collaboration with the European Parliament and for the very constructive proposals he put before us . 
Mr President , the Group of the European People ' s Party was not satisfied with the conclusions of the European Council in Helsinki . 
it seemed to us that the agenda lacked content , because our group was thinking in terms of the Treaty and , specifically , the protocol on the Union ' s institutions . 
in Helsinki , the governments approved the idea that , as long as the European Union consists of fewer than 21 States , a minimal reform would be sufficient . with more than 21 , a deeper reform would become necessary . 
the European Council in Helsinki itself approved enlargement involving 13 new Member States . 
it is therefore inconsistent to open accession negotiations with 13 countries while contemplating a minimal reform . 
we are therefore thinking in terms of the Treaty and we want the agenda of the next Intergovernmental Conference to allow for a deeper reform of the Union . 
having said this , Mr President , this Parliament is holding this debate today because we did not want to delay the start of the Conference . 
in theory , we could have done so . 
we could have voted on the 17th of this month and the Conference would not have been able to start on the 14th . 
however , we did not want to do this because we wish to send a clear political signal to the governments and the candidate countries that we want this reform to take place , precisely in order to facilitate enlargement . 
Mr President , I am very happy to be able to say this to the Portuguese Presidency because it has earned great respect in this Assembly . 
the Portuguese Presidency shares many of this Parliament ' s aspirations and has committed itself to doing everything it can to ensure that the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference is widened to include other essential issues . 
Mr President , I would like to point out that this aspiration on the part of the European Parliament is not an aspiration to gain benefits for the European Parliament itself . 
however , the European Parliament will be reinforced politically by the Treaty resulting from this Intergovernmental Conference . 
this is for one very simple reason : according to the agreements made in Helsinki , this Intergovernmental Conference will lead to issues , which are currently decided unanimously , being decided by a qualified majority . 
therefore , the number of issues decided by a qualified majority will increase . 
it is already established within the Community acquis that those legislative issues which are decided by a qualified majority are also subject to codecision with Parliament . 
therefore , since the qualified majority will be extended , there will also be more codecision with Parliament . 
however , this Parliament would not be fulfilling its role as a supranational European institution if it did not consider the political design of the Union . 
that it is what we are doing . 
we believe that , in the political design of the Union , other issues need to be dealt with . 
these include , amongst others , the incorporation into the Treaty of security and defence issues , which have made much progress recently , but which must be incorporated into the Treaty . 
of course there is also the Charter of Fundamental Rights , and work began on its wording yesterday , which I believe has started very positively . 
we are going to work seriously to ensure that the Europeans come to see being European as an advantage and that European citizens have certain fundamental rights which are connected to the Union ' s institutions . 
therefore , Mr President , our proposals , which we will specify in another report , together with the proposals of the Commission , which has produced an excellent document - and I am happy to be able to say this here to Mr Barnier - are going to be used as conference documents . 
we will talk about this on another day . 
today we must give the green light to this conference , and , for its part , the Group of the European People ' s Party , Mr President , is ready to give that green light . 
Mr President , for the Socialist Group I can say we will be supporting the draft opinion put forward by the rapporteurs on behalf of the Constitutional Affairs Committee . 
we are giving a positive opinion on the convening of the IGC precisely because we have been impressed by the attitude of the Portuguese Presidency which has taken on board our request that the agenda of the IGC be widened . 
the Amsterdam leftovers is not a very good term , because they are very important subjects in themselves . 
let us call them the first three subjects of the IGC . 
these first three subjects are very important but they are subjects which were explored in detail by our Member States during the last IGC . 
they did not quite reach a conclusion on them but they certainly do not need nine months of further study . 
they need a political deal . 
it is more a question of nine minutes , perhaps nine hours if it is difficult , locked away together in a room to reach a solution on these subjects , not nine months . 
in those circumstances it would be silly not to widen the agenda . 
there are other issues that should fruitfully be looked at , especially before such a large widening of the Union to so many new countries . 
nobody is asking for a Christmas tree . 
nobody is asking for an IGC of the Maastricht style with a hundred or more subjects being debated . 
however , there are six , seven , eight , nine perhaps , subjects which it would be very appropriate and useful to address . 
there is time . 
remember the IGC that led to the Single European Act . it lasted only five months . 
the IGC that led to the enormous Maastricht Treaty lasted a year . 
only the Amsterdam Treaty lasted a year and a half and that was because everyone knew you had to wait for the results of the British election if you were going to have any outcome from that IGC so that was a different reason . 
a year is ample time to address a large number of issues and it should certainly be enough to address the few crucial points that we wish to be added to the agenda . 
I am pleased to see that the Commission shares our view . 
the Commission has just published its opinion and it has done exactly what Parliament asked of it - to bring forward a comprehensive proposal complete with actual draft treaty articles . 
I thank the Commission for doing that even if , of course , I do not agree with everything the Commission said . 
I think there are some gaps in what they have put forward . 
nonetheless the Commission has provided a service and I pay tribute to Commissioner Barnier who is here with us today for doing that . 
they have laid out for the public to see some of the crucial issues that we are going to have to address in this IGC . 
that is all to the good . 
the Parliament , the Council presidency and the Commission are pulling in the same direction for a wider agenda . 
I wish you every success , President of the Council , in making sure that the European Council agrees to this agenda and that on Valentine ' s Day when you start off the IGC it will be under good auspices and you will bring it to a good conclusion , also when the French Presidency takes over , by the end of this year . 
we should no longer be worried that the agenda for the IGC will be restricted . 
that is one of the political conclusions that we must draw from the grave decision of 14 Member States yesterday virtually to freeze relations with a partner . 
it makes it impossible for those same Member States , at the IGC , to fail to give operational meaning to the protection and advancement of fundamental rights . 
it is already strange within the convention that is drafting the charter to see representatives of some Member States , especially Britain and France , seeking to argue that a mandatory charter would somehow be an infringement of national sovereignty . 
it is vital that the IGC prepares the way to accept the installation of a fundamental rights regime within the Treaty . 
one part of this is to improve the access of the citizen to the Court . 
another is for the Union itself to sign up to the European Convention . 
another is clearly for national parliaments and national political parties to find a reinforced role that they can play inside European Union affairs and to share the shouldering of responsibility to build European parliamentary democracy . 
my group strongly welcomes the IGC and will be contributing to this Treaty reform process to the maximum possible extent . 
Mr President , the Group of the Greens / European Free Alliance believes that the European Parliament ' s decision to rush headlong into giving its opinion on the Intergovernmental Conference undermines the political significance of the request for talks with the Council , and in the end , makes it rather irrelevant . 
we would have preferred to have had greater clarification of the agenda and more guarantees on the method before giving our opinion , and frankly , we did not appreciate the discourtesy the Portuguese Presidency showed towards the European Parliament by scheduling the start of the Intergovernmental Conference for Saint Valentine ' s day , the first day of the Strasbourg part @-@ session . 
moreover , given that this opinion is quite important , we can still vote for it , and indeed , the majority of our group will be voting for it . 
I nevertheless wish to stress the fact that it is quite distressing to see the lack of real interest in this reform . 
the events in Austria make it crystal clear that we need a body or structure for democracy in Europe and we need to establish principles which provide bases all the Member States . 
it is also distressing to think that the initiative taken against Austria is actually the result of an agreement between governments and that , in any case , the European Union and its institutions would not have had the means or the consensus to allow them to act , and to prevent and rectify the course of events . 
Mr President , Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , Commissioner , to my mind , it cannot be said often or loud enough that what the Council has adopted in the way of an agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference is completely unacceptable politically and I would add that I consider it to be nothing short of disgraceful . 
after all , we find ourselves in a situation of historic importance , that is to say , we are negotiating or are on the point of taking up negotiations with 12 States , and together we have reached a stage at which closer European integration may be a reality in the not too distant future . 
how , though , is the Union to be enlarged if we do not do the job properly now , i.e. before enlargement takes place ? 
that is why we as a group are in favour of the Intergovernmental Conference . 
we consider it to be indispensable and urgently needed and hope that it actually comes up with the goods that will enable us to carry out enlargement of the European Union in the not too distant future . 
my group , Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , noted with satisfaction that the Council Presidency is far from happy with the current state of affairs . 
you can therefore rest assured that the Confederal Group of the European United Left / Nordic Green Left is committed to seeing that the Union gets on with the tasks in hand . 
what we are talking about is nothing more and nothing less than the future of Europe , and , in particular , a Europe that the citizens truly regard as being theirs , because they are instrumental in shaping it and because the cares and concerns , the problems and issues they face on a daily basis are also taken seriously by politicians . 
the politics of closed doors and private discussions ; all that must be consigned to the past once and for all . 
that is why we need transparency . 
I believe it falls to you , as President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , to see to it that the train does not keep rolling on as before , leaving the people behind on the platforms as if they were ignorant as to the content of the treaties . 
we believe it is imperative not just to make every available effort to provide the citizens with comprehensive information on how the Intergovernmental Conference is going , and its outcome , rather they must be directly involved in the overall reform process to a far greater extent . 
we also take the view that the political decision @-@ makers must at long last change the habit of a life @-@ time and ask the citizens in referenda , once the Intergovernmental Conference is over , whether or not they go along with the way in which Europe is to continue to develop in the future . 
in this way , Europe would truly belong to the citizens and the Union would acquire an entirely new quality of democratic legitimacy . 
there is another central issue relating to democracy that I would like to make clear reference to . 
as a member of the convention that has now taken up its work on the Charter of Fundamental Rights , I wish to make the following point clear : neither my group nor I are content with making a solemn announcement about the Charter . 
after all , what will the citizens say if we make a solemn announcement about rights to them but they are unable to take legal action in respect of these rights as individuals ? 
no , to my mind this would only serve to deepen the credibility crisis facing the Union . 
the poor turnout at the European elections really should have been warning enough for everyone . 
what we need are visible rights for each and every citizen ; the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be made legally binding for all the citizens of the Union . 
together we should work towards this goal in the interests of the citizens , and what I expect to come out of the Intergovernmental Conference is that the relevant Cologne decision will be revised here at the end of the year . 
of course , we are also talking about effectiveness of decisions and functioning institutions in a Union of 27 plus Member States . 
we will not achieve this just by undertaking a mini reform , as the Council has resolved to do , and that is why all institutions must come under scrutiny . 
we need bold change and , at the same time , we must take care to give the greatest possible attention to equal rights for the major and small States . 
this is something I would stress , particularly with my being an MEP for one of the major Member States . 
I would like to thank the Commission for the proposals they have put forward and I am certain that comprehensive discussions with the citizens will ensue here in the European Parliament , on all the issues you have raised . 
there is one final issue I would like to raise . 
Parliament ' s opinion expressly demands amendments to the Treaty in the area of economic policy . 
it is indeed the case that globalisation of national economies , but above all the introduction of the euro and the associated stability pact have led to a situation where we need to do more than analyse decision @-@ making processes . 
what we need most of all is to have the courage to undertake a critical examination of the Union ' s policies to date . 
it is all about creating a socially just Europe . 
a socially just Europe is still highly topical , for what we need to do as a matter of priority is place the fight against mass unemployment and poverty firmly at the centre of the Union ' s policies . 
Mr President , the Union for a Europe of Nations Group considers that the agenda for the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference , as set by the Helsinki Council , i.e. focussing strictly on the issue of decision making in an enlarged Europe , must be adhered to . 
it must be adhered to in the interests of the fast , effective work of the conference , prior to enlargement . 
this is why we cannot subscribe to either the opinion of the European Parliament or indeed to that of the Commission , which both wish to widen this agenda far too much and , what is more , widen it in the wrong direction , i.e. moving towards centralisation and an ever tighter European system . 
our group has therefore tabled a raft of amendments which , when taken together , form a real alternative resolution . 
in them we say that the forthcoming IGC must look into a decision @-@ making system that pays greater attention to national sovereignty . 
we deplore the fact that the Commission , in its opinion of 26 January , limits itself to following the routine path of a standardised Europe enlarging towards the East , a centralised superstate operating on the basis of majority decisions . 
the federalists imagine that they are thereby going to create unity through constraint , but this is a totally superficial concept . 
quite the opposite , in an enlarged Europe , Mr President , the standardisation imposed by the improper use of majority decisions can lead only to the whole thing exploding . 
furthermore , the centralised European system , as we can see it developing today and as we can foresee it by extrapolation , erodes nations and , in eroding nations , erodes the national patriotism which forms the basis of our will to defend ourselves . 
the Europe which results from this is not stronger but weaker , as it no longer knows what it is or what it is defending . 
this is why we have always said that enlargement was possible only if the diversity and freedom of the peoples of Europe was clearly recognised , i.e. by adopting flexibility founded upon the respect of national sovereignty . 
we are delighted today to see the progress this idea has enjoyed in certain circles , one which are still , unfortunately , outside the European Parliament and the Commission . 
a flexible Europe , is a Europe which respects its national democracies , which relies on the support of its nations , its national patriotisms , instead of continually persecuting them . 
it is this that gives us the determination to defend ourselves against external threats , not the constraining , convoluted decision making procedures which the Commission thought it could propose at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference . 
Mr President , I am speaking on behalf of the Italian Radicals and I would like to say to the President of the Council that he has seen what Parliament ' s opinion is . 
this is the message that Parliament is sending to the Council . 
I hope that the Portuguese Presidency - and I add my compliments to those already offered - can convey Parliament ' s message and convey the result of our mediation work on Saint Valentine ' s day . in any case , tomorrow we shall vote against the IGC agenda . 
this message must be very clear ; this is how we explain the way we shall vote tomorrow . 
we shall give an opinion - which is technically and legally necessary - on convening the IGC on 14 February , but we shall give an unfavourable opinion of its content . 
there is clearly a more ambitious goal . 
we Radicals have tabled amendments which we are submitting to the House in order to consolidate this text , and for example , to request - just for the sake of mentioning Articles 6 and 7 - that the very minimum be done , i.e. , that the European Parliament should also be involved in drawing up the European Constitution and that a proposal be made for the European Parliament to adopt the amendments to the Treaty . 
we know that there are other topics : for example , many Members have subscribed , along with us , to the issue of the seat of the institutions , an issue that we believe should be considered at least at IGC level . 
in conclusion , I hope that the message that we give tomorrow will be strong and wide @-@ ranging for once , so that thanks also to the efforts of the Portuguese Presidency , this agenda will be revised . otherwise , the challenge really would be lost , not just for the present but also for many years to come . 
Mr President , the President of the Commission was not being quite honest when he talked last week about the Intergovernmental Conference . 
and , in this regard , you are going to the heart of democracy as it relates to distribution policy and people ' s social conditions , which are what voters wish to influence when they go to the polls . 
these are matters which we ourselves shall no longer be able to decide upon as voters and no longer be able to change on election day . 
Brussels knows best . 
Mr Prodi also announced greater transparency , but his draft regulation signals a clear backward step , and that is not only my assessment , but also that of the European Ombudsman . 
today , the Commission is obliged , on a case @-@ by @-@ case basis , to weigh considerations of confidentiality against people ' s demands for , and expectation of , transparency and , if the Commission ' s regulation is adopted , the Commission will be entitled to lock away whole categories of documents without having to give them specific consideration . 
there is also the desire to create a legal entitlement to confidentiality and to lock away documents of a kind which are at present publicly available in a range of Member States . 
under the banner of " progress towards transparency " , a range of documents is being locked away from the general public . 
it is , of course , thoroughly Orwellian . 
I want to ask Mr Prodi never more to comment on a proposal here in the House which is not , at the same time , available for critical scrutiny by the public . 
Mr Prodi secured positive comments for a proposal which would otherwise have been met with criticism , for the new draft regulation presents as progress the fact that it will now be possible to grant right of access to documents in the Commission ' s possession . there follows , however , a long , long list of exceptions , and there is legal entitlement to confidentiality in regard to those exceptions . 
the French text contains the word " refuse " and the English text the word " shall " , which means that the Commission is to keep secret such information as is today available to the public , for example in my own country . 
in addition , we have a flexible clause concerning the efficiency of the negotiations and of the institutions , which may be used for any purposes whatsoever . it is therefore ... 
( the President cut the speaker off ) 
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , the Portuguese Council Presidency ' s account has given me the distinct impression that we are approaching this Intergovernmental Conference with well @-@ considered ideas and a high degree of openness . 
we as a European Parliament will use these opportunities to see that our issues are given the attention they deserve . 
the preparations the Commission has made so far are on the right track , although they do not go far enough if the European Parliament ' s motions are anything to go by . 
there is more to be said on that score . 
it is crucially important for this Intergovernmental Conference to score a hat trick ; that of the power to act , democratic legitimacy and transparency . 
in the end , it is only by having these three things in place that we will be able to achieve acceptance amongst the citizens . 
at the same time of course , we need to create the power to act in order to facilitate the enlargement of the European Union . 
if we have been having a different debate here in this Chamber today then that only goes to show how important this is . 
the European Union must also have the power to act in the event of a government electing to impose a total blockade . 
this is an important sign that majority voting is a crucial pre @-@ requisite to the European Union ' s being able to function come what may . 
this is particularly important where enlargement is concerned , and legislation and in relation to treaties , which entail changes being made to legislation . 
of course we also want to extend the European Parliament ' s corresponding powers in this area . 
in addition , we as a European Parliament are going to have to take action in relation to Economic and Monetary Union , for there is a lack of supervision in this area . 
the Finance Ministers behave as if they were in an intergovernmental meeting , when in the Ecofin Council and in the Euro 11 Council , which is an unacceptable way to go on . 
unlike Mrs Kaufmann , I am not in favour of extending supervision over the European Central Bank as I am an advocate of independence for the European Central Bank . 
however , there must be an appropriate level of supervision on the political side . 
furthermore , the tripartite relationship of Commission , Council and Parliament must be restored to the sphere of foreign and security policy , where hitherto the Council was in sole charge far more than should have been the case , especially in relation to the crudely fashioned crisis management measures , for which the Commission alone has responsibility . 
the overall plan failed to do justice to any of this . 
we must examine whether any changes are needed to this end which would fall within the scope of the Intergovernmental Conference . 
the Portuguese Presidency has agreed to initiate deliberations on this matter , perhaps to extend the mandate . 
there is another point I would just like to draw your attention to . 
the debates we are having these days , on a certain European country ' s government , for example , show , do they not , that we must place the spiritual , moral , constitutional , community and common welfare @-@ orientated leanings of the European Union on a firm footing , and that legally binding fundamental rights must also be incorporated into the Treaty for the same reason , as this will be a crucial stabilising factor . 
I would urge those who are still very hesitant in this respect to consider whether now is not the time to make this connection and perhaps pluck up the courage we need to make suitable progress in matters of fundamental rights . 
the European Union needs few , if any , new instruments , and it does not need any new competences . 
what it does need are instruments that will enable it to put its competences into practice . 
for this reason , we must ensure that the instruments have the effect of enabling us to carry out , on behalf of the citizens , the tasks we have already formally been set in the Treaty . 
in my view , that is the most important issue this Intergovernmental Conference has to concentrate its energies on . 
if we succeed in making progress here , then we will also be ready for the historic task of enlarging the European Union . 
this is the crux of the matter . 
Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , I am confident that this will be tackled in a suitably positive manner under your tutelage . 
I can assure you that it was not easy to achieve this , last week in the Committee I chair , but we eventually decided to back the Portuguese Presidency and we would like to win this wager . 
you spoke to us about the start of your tour around the various capital cities and told us about the difficulties that some governments have in reaching a consensus in their own countries , and therefore in their parliaments . 
I would like you to bear in mind that yesterday we had a very worthwhile day of discussions and dialogue with the representatives of the 15 national parliaments , which were represented by competent and exacting delegations . 
the aim was not to draw conclusions - it was impossible to draw any - but the debate was certainly very encouraging . 
we need to be careful and be sure that national governments try to convince their respective parliaments to ratify solutions that correspond to the Union ' s requirements for growth and that they do not hide behind supposed resistance put up by the parliaments to avoid signing appropriate conclusions at the Intergovernmental Conference table . 
however , we shall intensify our collaboration and our dialogue with the national parliaments for the entire duration of the Intergovernmental Conference . 
yesterday , we also discussed the Commission , represented by Commissioner Barnier , who gave its opinion . 
this effort was appreciated , even if different views were later expressed as regards the proposals , and moreover , Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office , you also expressed different views . 
nevertheless , we must stress that many people are aware , as they were yesterday too , of the risk that enlargement could compromise the original plan for the construction of a political Europe , a risk that was , moreover , indicated in an interview that surely escaped no one ' s attention , owing to the authority of the person being interviewed - Jacques Delors . 
we must , therefore , ensure that at the Intergovernmental Conference we discuss how to consolidate the democratic bases of the Union and how to strengthen - and this has been discussed in the House even today , with regard to the situation in Austria - the system of principles , values and rights underpinning the Union and the role of the political institutions of the Union , with regard , among other things , to running the economy . 
we are counting on the Portuguese Presidency , we are counting on ourselves and we are counting on the Commission so that we can hold constructive and decisive debates on all of this at the Intergovernmental Conference . 
Mr President , only a strengthened Europe can cope with enlargement . 
only a strengthened Europe is immune to political opportunists who exploit dissatisfaction . 
that is why sweeping reforms are necessary and , hence , a widened IGC agenda . 
the Finnish Presidency only listened to minimalist governments and , unfortunately , turned a deaf ear to this Parliament . 
Portugal should not take a leaf out its predecessor ' s book . 
it is of the utmost importance that the European Parliament and the Commission join forces for this IGC . 
in many ways , they share the same interests and the same insights . 
an essential component of this joint effort should , in any case , be this Parliament ' s right of assent to the forthcoming changes to the Treaty . 
of all priorities , this one is the most pressing . 
what is the Commission ' s verdict on this ? 
it also means that our Parliament President and the two representatives should be able to take part on an equal political footing and , therefore , not only within the working party , but also at the same political level as the Commission . 
there is no reason whatsoever why representatives directly elected by citizens should be involved in talks at a lower level than the Commission . 
not only do we owe the sweeping reforms to the new Member States , but we owe them to ourselves . 
if we allow Europe to be watered down as a result of enlargement , we will drown in our own political quagmire . 
Mr President , there are days when I really cannot understand this Parliament . it seems to take a masochistic pleasure in self @-@ mutilation . 
after having restricted , on its own initiative , its participation in the IGC to two minor seats , Parliament is now giving up the right to add to the agenda for this IGC . 
the fact is , whether through weakness or foolishness - nothing to be proud of either way , you will admit - in rushing to give its opinion , Parliament is giving up the only lever which the Treaty accords it , i.e. demanding a complete IGC agenda as a prerequisite before declaring its opinion . 
why do we have to vote on this opinion tomorrow , 3 February , as a matter of urgency , when we could wait , in a position of strength , until the opening of the Strasbourg part @-@ session on 14 February , and thus force an agenda that is complete , and therefore consistent , on the Council . 
a good dose of hypocrisy is needed to overlook our weakness today . 
hypocrisy to be regretted bitterly , in our resolution , that the agenda for the IGC is not equal to the issues , since in our haste , with blameworthy naivety , we are stopping ourselves forcing through this more ambitious agenda . 
if there is a democratic deficit at the end of this IGC , then I say that the political groups which so wanted this haste will be accountable for this . 
whether we want it or not , since Parliament itself is going to extinguish the only spotlight capable of shedding a little light on the debates , the venue for decisions is now going to move to the 15 Member States of the Union . 
I therefore invite the Members of Parliament who form the great majority , those who last November ruled that the future of Europe was deserving of debates that went far wider than the Amsterdam leftovers , to take up their pilgrims ' staffs and go and convince their own governments that this IGC must be extended , since this is permitted according to the resolution of the Helsinki Council . 
because of the situation in Austria , this is a dark day for Europe . 
it makes us realise that the victory of democracy is never definitive , and that we have to work to convince and keep on convincing . 
in order to assert our fundamental values , they need to be laid down in writing , as a matter of urgency , and , beyond this IGC , I believe we owe Europe a constitution . 
Mr President , the draft resolution we are now discussing requires , precisely as before , that the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference should have a broad agenda involving radical reforms of the institutions . 
the forthcoming enlargement of the Union is used as an argument for this . 
I am convinced that this is an error of judgement . 
a federal and centralist EU which intervenes more and more in the government of the Member States is in actual fact less well placed for enlargement . 
a flexible EU which concentrates on fewer but important areas and which respects national differences and national democracy has a better chance of embracing a significantly greater number of countries . 
paragraph D of the draft resolution requires a more coordinated and more open economic policy at EU level . 
it is not , however , possible to talk about this without at the same time talking about monetary union . 
this text says nothing about the major democratic and political problems involving monetary union and the European Central Bank . this is untenable . 
if there is a desire to make the EU more democratic , the whole construction of EMU must be reconsidered . 
the Central Bank must be placed under political control so that the direction to be taken by monetary policy may be governed by political objectives such as high employment and prosperity . public control of the Central Bank must be improved if this is to become possible . 
the rigid and unsuccessful monetarism of the Stability Pact must be re @-@ examined and discarded so that we might have a uniform policy which has prosperity as its primary objective . 
Article 56 of the Treaty , prohibiting currency speculation or any interference in the free movement of capital , must be removed so that damaging currency speculation may be checked by means of political control . 
in the majority of EU countries , there are now governments dominated by social democrats . 
it is remarkable that , now they have the opportunity to do so , none of them is demanding any change in the direction taken by monetary union . 
it also , of course , damages credibility when it is stated that monetary union could constitute a counterbalance to globalised capital . 
the resolution requires the European Parliament to have increased influence over the Intergovernmental Conference . 
it is , however , important to emphasise that the Intergovernmental Conference is and will remain a conference of the Member States . 
it is the Member States ' parliaments , or people voting in referenda , who are to direct the development of the Treaty . 
it is therefore out of the question that the European Parliament should be given any formal influence over the negotiation process or over ratification . 
Mr President , the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has proposed an essentially positive text , which I shall vote for , even if I personally had proposed a lot of amendments to broaden it . 
nevertheless , the events of the last few days show that all those who had made basic criticisms of the way enlargement and the revision of the Treaties have been planned were right . 
the Union cannot be enlarged to 28 without addressing the matter of whether Europe has certain joint principles and values , whether it comes down to an economic free trade area , or whether , on the other hand , it has a greater ambition : the desire to be a supranational union , in ways that have yet to be defined , that wants to blaze a trail for civilisation and democracy in the world . 
this is what is and was meant by the call for a European Constitution . 
the amendment of the Treaties was , however , limited to a review of some internal rules , which was necessary and important , but did not answer the fundamental question : what is Europe , what are its common principles and therefore , its objectives and limitations ? 
however , politics exacts its revenge , and having been thrown out of the window by a debate on a limited agenda , it comes back in , as a matter of fact , through a door , and through the front door in the case of Austria , since a party is entering the Austrian Government which seems to represent a return to intolerance , xenophobia and forms of racism . 
and it is not a question of links with the past ; it is a question of prospects for the future , and nothing could be more wrong than the right and left taking a divided stand on this . 
I belong to a world , the world of Liberal Catholics , which is not left @-@ wing but which holds as dear as anyone else the values of tolerance and common European values , and will have nothing to do with policies that reject these values . 
the Council has done well to lay open this subject to Europe and to the world and if we do not set down these values in a Charter of Fundamental Rights , in a European Constitution , then we shall construct a Europe without a solid , lasting base . 
Commissioner Barnier , I know - at least I think I know - that you and the representatives of the Portuguese Presidency share these values : make the most of the chances you were given by the December Conference to include these subjects and principles , because this is the only way we will build a lasting Europe . 
Mr President , I am in the happy position of being able to refer to a couple of striking contributions from a small group of Nordic sceptics and opponents of the drastic and growing integration process which , looked long and hard at , threatens the whole of democratic Europe . 
I am thinking of the contributions from Mr Bonde and Mr Sjöstedt who point out that the present contribution contains a string of relatively unconscious but undoubtedly rational initiatives dictated by the desire for power and pointing in the direction of a centralist and federalist EU . 
they rightly included the problem with monetary union and centralist government and presented a number of alternative democratic principles . 
however , that is precisely what is happening . 
you can think what you like about Mr Haider , and I personally consider him to be a very dangerous politician , but you cannot just intervene in an independent and friendly country ' s democratic process . 
when we hold intergovernmental conferences and consider changes to the Treaty , we must take into account the fact that the EU is developing all the time , sometimes in contravention of the Treaty , as we have just seen . 
I welcome Commissioner Barnier and the Portuguese Presidency here this afternoon . 
on 14 February , we will see the launch of the IGC which is to be completed by the end of 2000 . 
this is a big task but it can be done . 
I think it is generally agreed here this afternoon across all groups that the Helsinki agenda will not be sufficient to cover the necessary reform to prepare Europe for enlargement . 
in other words we need to go further than what has been referred to as the important " Amsterdam leftovers " . 
these include the extension of qualified voting - in my country we accept that but not to areas of taxation - the re @-@ weighting of voting in Council to favour larger states and the number of Commissioners in an enlarged Europe . 
in relation to the latter point , Ireland wants to maintain the right to nominate a full and equal Member of the Commission irrespective of the number of Member States joining . 
we are prepared to consider re @-@ weighting the votes in the Council of Ministers , provided that the larger Member States are willing to agree to every Member State having a full and equal Member of the Commission . 
I feel I speak for many smaller countries when I make that particular point . 
at the IGC , we would also need a debate on the possible divisions of the Treaties into two - into a policy area and an area on the Constitution . 
we would accept the division of the Treaties providing it would not limit the control the smaller Member States had in the re @-@ negotiation of the whole policy area of the Treaty . 
in other words , if we are not represented fully in the Commission we will not have an input into policy discussions . 
so we are watching that entire point extremely carefully . 
we look forward to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to seeing its contents . 
the Treaty of Amsterdam , Mr President , has set the number of European Parliament Members at 700 and a debate is needed in this Parliament on how that number will be distributed among the enlarged Europe . 
Mr President , the Intergovernmental Conference mandate needs to be widened . 
the most important issue with regard to this is internal differentiation within the Union . 
it is unfortunate that there has been no serious consideration thus far here in Parliament of the issue of internal differentiation within the Union , which will , however , be necessary if the Union is to enlarge as planned . 
the Commission ' s former president , Jacques Delors , has once again publicly raised the issue of a European Confederation . 
he has also said that the countries in the vanguard of integration should be able to proceed faster and that they should have their own institutions , for the sake of clarity . 
the Commission ' s current President , Mr Prodi , and the High Representative , Mr Solana , have put forward ideas along the same lines . 
last November , the Group of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party adopted a position on internal differentiation within the Union when it proposed a system of concentric rings for Europe : the onion skin model . 
in the next resolution on the IGC , Parliament must take a long and hard look at the questions of differentiation and flexibility . 
both enlargement and the achievements of integration will come under threat unless we can create a system of concentric rings , as proposed by the Group of the European Liberal Democrats and Reform Party . 
my colleagues , Mrs Frassoni and Mr Onesta have already spoken , somewhat sceptically , about some aspects of the matter in hand . 
I wish to add a voice of concern on the topic of subsidiarity , not just between Union and Member States but between Member States and their own internally self @-@ governing regions . 
this has been given inadequate attention and there are many things to be concerned about . 
may I particularly draw attention to one of the implications of enlargement in respect of this Parliament . 
a ceiling of 700 has been prescribed as the maximum that Parliament can safely become and remain a deliberative assembly . 
if you apply the existing principle of digressive proportionality , six seats for every state and then one more seat for every half a million inhabitants , you already have the situation where Luxembourg with 367,000 people has more Members in this Chamber than Wales , which is a partly self @-@ governing region of the United Kingdom . 
Scotland , with a population of 5 million , has eight seats in this House at the moment ; Denmark and Finland , with the same population , have sixteen . 
now what is going to happen if we retain a ceiling of 700 , bring in 26 % more population over time , and then adopt the Commission ' s , I think ill @-@ considered , proposition , that there should be a European list of candidates . 
what will happen to a place like Scotland , which I represent here ? 
it will become totally invisible ! 
Members of this House should not in these circumstances be in the least surprised that in these discussions , people in Scotland and other such countries are asking whether enlargement should not also take the form of admitting new Member States from within existing ones . 
a growing body of opinion in Scotland holds that view . 
Mr President , to say that the European Union is at a crossroads is no doubt nothing new . it has been said many times . 
this time , however , it is true . 
we have established the single currency - which is extremely positive - and we are facing enlargement . 
the question is if we will undertake enlargement whether we are prepared or not . 
will we enlarge with or without deep reform ? 
that is the debate , and this question must be addressed in any discussion of the Intergovernmental Conference , its agenda or its method . 
it is clear that the Council , for the moment , has not opted for enlarging with deep reforms in place . 
that puts enlargement in danger . 
it jeopardises any prospect of political union and , of course , it is difficult for the public to understand . 
the Council must realise that , if we want the future of the European Union to involve a form of enlargement built on firm foundations , the next Intergovernmental Conference must go much further . 
the Council is consulting us and Parliament is giving its opinion . 
we want an Intergovernmental Conference , but not this one . 
must there be an IGC ? 
of course there must , but not this type of Intergovernmental Conference . 
the agenda must go much further . we must be much more daring with regard to the issues dealt with in the IGC and we must be much more transparent and much more democratic . 
being much more democratic means greater participation by the European Parliament and allowing the Commission to exercise even more - yes , more - its ability to take the initiative . 
we must clearly set firm objectives . 
the functionalist approach is over , for better or for worse . 
the functionalist approach has brought us to this point . 
have we achieved results ? 
yes , but the point is to make a qualitative leap and , speaking in political terms , this , Mr President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council , means convincing the other Community partners that to fall short would be the worst thing we could do at the moment . 
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen of the House , at this stage , following this debate which I have listened to most attentively and with great interest , I should like to make a few comments in addition to the guidelines and the statements which it has been my honour to present to you in the course of recent weeks in the company of President Prodi . 
as far as we are concerned , after producing the opinion expected from the Commission , according to this same Article 48 of the Treaty , we are pleased that the conference can thus begin earlier than anticipated . 
we know , I know myself , that the weeks we have before us will be useful to us . 
I would just like to make a few comments , after reading the draft opinion and after listening to the speakers on behalf of the various groups . 
firstly , ladies and gentlemen , the Commission understands the anxiety expressed by a number of you with regard to the scope of the conference agenda . 
I understand this anxiety , this fear that the agenda may be too limited , and yet I feel , as I said to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on returning from Helsinki , that we can work on the basis of this Helsinki mandate . 
indeed , it is in this spirit and in the framework of this mandate , which the Commission framed for its own opinion , but using all the terms thereof , plus everything between the lines . 
we have not restricted ourselves to the three so @-@ called leftovers , which is , in any case , an incorrect label . 
I do not like the term ' leftovers ' any more than Richard Corbett does . 
it gives the impression that they are three minor or insignificant subjects whereas in fact they are three extremely serious and important subjects , and difficult , so difficult that we did not have sufficient political courage collectively at Amsterdam to deal with them in depth . 
as far as we are concerned - I am responding to Mr Seguro who expressed concerns about this just now - we have not restricted ourselves to these three subjects , even though I do consider them as priorities , and consider that they must be dealt with now . 
they are the first but they are not the only subjects , Mr Seguro , that the conference must deal with . 
we have dealt with other subjects and we have mentioned our idea that other subjects may be dealt with in this conference , if the Portuguese Presidency firstly , and then the French Presidency , so wish , in view of the serious nature of the present juncture prior to enlargement . 
we are ready for it , whether it is a matter of the Charter of Fundamental Rights , on which work has started , the CFSP and the consequences for the institutions of the current defence policy negotiations , or an extremely difficult subject on which we are continuing to work : reorganisation of the Treaties . 
I have heard many comments on the Commission ' s opinion , which mentioned all these subjects and dealt with many of them in depth , with specific indications of new draft articles , but no one has said that we were going beyond the Helsinki mandate . 
this proves that it is possible to go into issues in depth while respecting this mandate , by using the terms laid down in the mandate and all the openings which it offers . 
as regards the participation of the European Parliament in the conference proceedings , I think that Mr Seixas da Costa will agree with me , on the basis of our shared experience , in saying that you would be wrong to disregard the level of the reflection and negotiating group in which your two representatives , Professor Tsatsos and Mr Brok , are going to be working . 
of course , the final trade @-@ offs will be made , as in any institutional negotiations , and I think this is no bad thing , at Council level , especially at the level of the Council of Heads of State and Government , who hold the key to the success of this conference in their hands . 
let me point out , in passing , that the Commission President , Mr Prodi , is also a Council member , and he has every intention of making use of this position and this role , alongside the Heads of State and Government , particularly during the final period . 
however , these Council proceedings must be carefully prepared . 
this preparatory work , this fine @-@ tuning , must not be omitted , ladies and gentlemen of the House . I know from my own experience in Amsterdam that it is extremely important and useful , and that it will not just be limited to technical details . 
I think that all of us , the personal representatives of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs , your two representatives , and myself , as a representative of the Commission , will be going into matters in detail , but it will be afterwards , at a different level , one in which we will also be participating , that the last trade @-@ offs must be made . 
throughout this conference , ladies and gentlemen , it is not only the status of the negotiators which is important , but the quality of what they will be saying . 
and once again I should like to point out in this House , in view of my own experience prior to Amsterdam , that whatever the ambiguity or weakness of the status acknowledged to the two representatives of the European Parliament , prior to Amsterdam , the quality of what Mrs Guigou and Mr Brok said counted for a lot in these negotiations . 
I am sure that the situation will be just the same and , as far as I am concerned , in my current position , I shall ensure that the contributions of your two representatives are listened to and respected throughout these negotiations . 
I am sure that in this way the European Parliament will not be just an observer at these negotiations any more than the Commission will be . 
we now await , therefore , with great interest , ladies and gentlemen of the House , your next opinion , in which you will specify Parliament ' s priorities and practical proposals for these negotiations . 
in the coming months , ladies and gentlemen of the House , the Commission will therefore be working in close cooperation , on good terms , with your two representatives , Professor Tsatsos and Mr Elmar Brok , in order to reconcile our points of view , if need be . 
quite probably , our points of view and our positions will not always be the same . there will probably be differences of opinion , that would be only normal . 
the important thing is that we are consistent , and I have been committed to working towards this consistency ever since I accepted the position of Commissioner . 
our concern and our ambition , therefore , on a large number of subjects , is to be on the same wavelength and to carry these negotiations forward successfully . 
this will not be a matter of chance , since , let me repeat , I feel we have the same ambitions for these negotiations and that together we see it as a moment of truth for the European Union . 
finally , I should like to make three additional comments , quite briefly , Mr President . 
firstly , to congratulate and thank Mr Napolitano , the chairman , and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs for the extremely original major initiative which it took yesterday in bringing together the competent representatives of national parliaments , the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Commission for an initial joint debate . 
such dialogue between the national parliaments , the European Parliament and ourselves is extremely important . 
I have said , furthermore , that I would play my part by visiting each of the national parliaments . 
tomorrow , I shall be in London . 
in a fortnight ' s time , I shall be in Berlin . 
in three weeks ' time , I shall be in Paris , and I shall continue this dialogue in one capital after another . 
I feel this initiative you have taken is extremely positive , and I should like to thank you for taking it . 
my second brief comment is to thank the Portuguese Presidency , particularly Mr Seixas da Costa , for his proactive approach . 
indeed , the comments which have just been made express a proactive attitude and a concern which match his own : the Portuguese Presidency cannot be just an interim presidency . 
it will have to initiate these negotiations . 
we are well aware that they cannot be completed within these six months and that it will have to hand over to the French Presidency , in the hope that a conclusion can be reached before the end of the year 2000 . 
not only that a conclusion can be reached , but that a successful conclusion can be reached , which is not necessarily the same thing . 
concluding negotiations is not the same as concluding them successfully . 
the handover will have been made , but the conditions in which the handover is going to be made , by yourself , Mr President , and by the Portuguese Presidency , are going to be extremely important , as is the nature of this handover . 
it is all the work which is going to be carried out together , under your guidance particularly , in the course of these few months , which is extremely important . 
we have great confidence in the Portuguese Presidency ' s ability to bring this task to a successful conclusion , and indeed great expectations thereof . Portugal is a small country , but being a small country is no reason why one may not have great ambitions . 
after having heard Prime Minister Guterres , the Minister of Foreign Affairs and yourself , I have confidence in the ambition of the Portuguese Presidency and the extremely proactive way in which it will conduct these negotiations . 
it can count on the partnership of the Commission over the next few months . 
finally , let me repeat , we shall have a very great effort to make in order to popularise the topics of these negotiations . 
these are difficult subjects , subjects relating to institutional policy and mechanisms which are not always easy to explain . 
all the more reason for Members of the European Parliament , Ministers , Commissioners to devote a little time to explaining matters to the citizens , to public debate . 
as far as the Commission is concerned , it will , ladies and gentlemen , be taking initiatives to inaugurate and orchestrate this public debate . 
cross @-@ border services 
the next item is the joint debate on the following reports : 
A5 @-@ 0007 / 2000 by Mrs Berger , on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , on a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the posting of workers who are third @-@ country nationals for the provision of cross @-@ border services ( COM ( 1999 ) 3 - C4 @-@ 0095 / 1999 - 1999 / 0012 ( COD ) ) ; 
A5 @-@ 0012 / 2000 by Mrs Berger , on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , on a proposal for a Council directive extending the freedom to provide cross @-@ border services to third @-@ country nationals established in the Community ( COM ( 1999 ) 3 - C4 @-@ 0096 / 1999 - 1999 / 0013 ( CNS ) ) . 
- ( DE ) Mr President , Commissioner , firstly I would like to apologise for being a little hoarse today , but we Austrian MEPs have had a lot of explaining and talking to do . 
I would first like to say how indebted I am to the Commission for seizing the initiative , and for the two draft directives we are discussing here today . 
it has thereby succeeded in closing two serious loopholes in the internal market which are of great significance to the European economy and to 5 million third @-@ country nationals in the European Union who are here as workers or on a self @-@ employed basis . 
however , the European Court of Justice did not make specific reference to the issue of visa requirements and conditions of residence and consequently the Member States were unable to clarify this issue . 
furthermore , not all Member States have abided by the Court of Justice ' s verdicts with regards to the lapsing of the work permit requirement , and they still have a multiplicity of unacceptable barriers in place in respect of cross @-@ border services ; barriers that are often impossible to overcome , especially for the smaller companies . 
the situation as far as self @-@ employed people are concerned is that current Community invested legal rights do not afford third @-@ country nationals the right to provide cross @-@ border services . 
there is no doubt that we need a legislative act here . 
both draft directives seek to facilitate the freedom to provide services for EU enterprises . 
it is not about establishing original rights for third @-@ country nationals modelled on freedom of movement . 
all provisions , i.e. issues relating to entry into the EU and to the law pertaining to residence rights , should be regarded as ancillary to this freedom to provide services . 
I , together with the European Parliament ' s Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , are therefore of the opinion that the Commission has chosen the right legal bases and that the opposite view , as expressed in the report produced by the Council ' s Legal Service , is inappropriate . 
consequently , I do not see that there is any real obstacle to the Council ' s being able to move matters on quickly as far as these two draft directives are concerned . 
I also believe that Parliament ' s proposed amendments should make it easier for the Council to adopt the directives as opposed to the Commission ' s proposal . 
many of our amendments relate back to concerns that were also voiced in the Council , and we are attempting to reconcile these concerns with the task that falls to us by dint of extant law and economic good sense . 
when it comes to acceptance by the Council , I can only urge the Commission to adopt as many of the amendments adopted by Parliament as possible , even if some of them deviate substantially from the original Commission proposals . 
I am absolutely convinced that it will be easier for us to achieve consensus in the Council on this basis . 
turning now to the most important of our proposed amendments , one of the essential differences is that , in place of a " service provision card plus notification for each individual contract " system , provision is no longer made for being able to request the previous notification from the receiving state for each individual contract . 
this system appears to us to be unsuitable in practical terms . 
however , in order to compensate for this , all possible obstacles must be removed before the service provision card is issued , and as the Commission ' s proposal would have it , more stringent conditions must be satisfied before a service provision card is issued . 
an individual is required to be in authorised employment and to have the right of residence and insurance protection , not just at the time of issue of the card but throughout its period of validity and for three months thereafter . 
this should serve as a guarantee for the receiving state that the employee or self @-@ employed person will return to the sending state once the contract is completed and that they will be covered under insurance law in the event of illness or accident . 
likewise , the situation with regard to right of entry and residence rights should be clarified before the service provision card is issued , namely under the terms of an opposition procedure . 
what we are proposing is that it should not just be a case of having to apply for the EU service provision card for all Member States , rather one should also have the option of applying for it for individual Member States . 
I believe this system is also more suited to practical needs . 
I would hope that the same holds true for the proposal to reduce the minimum period of duration for a first posting to three months , and to be flexible in adapting the period of validity of the service provision card to the duration of the first posting . 
however , we stand by our view that the maximum period of validity for the service provision card should be 12 months . 
when it comes to self @-@ employed persons , in addition to the amendments already described , we propose that the domicile criteria should be made more stringent , and that we should make provision for the possibility of countering any abuse in the way of bogus self @-@ employment . 
I would also just like to go into those of the proposed amendments that go beyond the proposed amendments put forward by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . 
of course I would add that I continue to support this committee ' s amendments , which they adopted unanimously . 
I have even submitted four amendments on behalf of my group that largely relate to the correct way of quoting Council decisions . 
I must say I have received extremely contradictory statements from Parliament ' s services as to exactly how these Council decisions should be quoted ; whether or not one should use the number or date alone , or both , and how extensively to quote from them . 
two amendments were cancelled by the services because the content has supposedly already been given consideration to in the report . 
I withdraw the two other amendments - that is Amendment No 18 to the report on self @-@ employed persons and Amendment No 21 on employed persons . 
I can only urge the Conference of Presidents to reach agreement as quickly as possible on the correct way to proceed in matters of comitology , i.e. the correct way to quote . 
this would make our rapporteur ' s life considerably easier in the future . 
there is also a proposed amendment to both of Mrs De Palacio ' s reports . 
unfortunately I have to say that I am unable to support this proposed amendment because it in fact changes the substance of the outcome that we in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market resolved on unanimously , and I would like to stand by this outcome , which we arrived at together after lengthy discussions . 
that is why he deserves special mention ! 
( NL ) Mr President , I am pleased I have been given the opportunity to make a few introductory remarks at the end of rapporteur Mrs Berger ' s speech , after which I will , of course , listen with all due attention to the next speakers . if you allow me , Mr President , I would like to go into the different amendments in more detail at the end of the debate . 
may I say how the Commission welcomes the European Parliament ' s support for the two proposals on the freedom to provide services and on third @-@ country employees , the topic of the debate . 
I am extremely grateful for the work that Mrs Berger has put into these proposals which are politically sensitive and which constitute a legislative challenge . 
I would also thank Mrs Palacio most warmly for her major contribution as chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . 
the Commission particularly welcomes the suggestions made by Parliament for a more efficient procedure for the issue of service provision cards . 
if the opportunity is created to apply for service provision cards for one or more , or all , Member States , the procedure would be more flexible still . 
the Commission also supports the proposed flexible period of validity of the card . 
however , I do not consider a three @-@ month period of employment to be sufficient to prove that an employee is resident in a Member State . 
the Commission also agrees with a provision for cases in which the contract of employment between the service provider and his employer is terminated at short notice . 
an efficient procedure for issuing cards implies that companies which provide cross @-@ border services can also exercise their rights in concrete terms on the basis of the internal market . 
it seems over the top to us for other Member States to be given the option of systematically carrying out inspections systematically with a view to safeguarding public order before they issue cards . 
indeed , it should be possible for a third @-@ country subject who has legal status in a Member State to be admitted to other Member States too . 
that does not prevent these Member States from taking public @-@ order measures within the framework of the proposed duty of notification . 
neither does the Commission accept the proposal that legal status in a Member State should be valid three months after the card has expired . 
following completion of the service , it is not acceptable for the third @-@ country subject in question to remain any longer in the Member State in which the service is provided . 
that is why the Commission supports Mrs Palacio ' s Amendment No 22 in both respects . 
as far as the second proposal is concerned , the Commission appreciates the wish that it should be clear what is meant by someone who is self @-@ employed and would therefore like to resolve this issue in the amended proposal . 
these are a few introductory remarks concerning the key amendments . 
I hope that , at the end of the debate , when all the speakers have contributed , I will once again be given the opportunity to elaborate upon the different amendments . 
Mr President , tomorrow will see a large majority within the PPE Group vote in favour of the amendments put forward by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , as well as the amended version . 
I propose to confine my comments to two areas . 
firstly there is the question as to what this directive is actually designed to achieve , that is achieve in the real sense . 
there is the fact that we have to take the interests of the economy and also of the individual into account . 
my comments start from the premise that we are talking about an upright individual in gainful employment . 
then there are the interests of the Member States , which , being on the receiving end , may have to start from the premise of a worst case scenario . 
if we are going to abide by the one extreme , that is the interests of the Member States , then we certainly have every reason to make the hurdles that have to be cleared in applying for this card relatively high . 
there is also an argument for introducing early notification obligations as well as having this card . 
if I were to go to the other extreme , as few hurdles as possible that is , then I would run the risk of failing to produce any legislation whatsoever in the course of this procedure because the Member States would not sign up to this directive . 
I would therefore end up with a situation where a directive on the service provision card might well be in place , but with the hurdles facing the business world being so high , in reality no one would apply for the card . alternatively , I might have no directive at all . 
neither outcome would be satisfactory . 
perhaps this is also why , as is rumoured to be the case , the Council has become bogged down in its negotiations on this as well . 
we have been trying to reach a happy compromise between one interest - that of public order - and the other , that of finding the easiest possible solution . 
we want to arrive at a solution where certain hurdles are created vis @-@ à-vis the business world , but once these have been overcome , implementation is as easy as it possibly could be . 
therefore we want applications for the service provision card to be for one or more Member States . 
if a company in France says that it has an employee who has to work in Denmark on a permanent basis , and only in Denmark , then it certainly ought only to be possible to apply for this card for Denmark . 
accordingly , the bureaucratic hurdles that have to be overcome would be lower in this instance . 
in return for this , however , we want early notification obligations to be discontinued , rather it should just be a matter of the employee taking the justification for the posting to the other Member State along with them , and this might take the form of the contract forming the basis for his / her posting . 
consequently , I too have to say that I am in favour of the amendments put forward by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . 
perhaps there was a certain amount of residual misunderstanding on the part of the Commission . 
we want to achieve a completely flexible solution . 
if a particular Member State was to declare that it had suddenly run into problems because the individual concerned had committed a theft and the card was for their country , then this particular Member State would be able to revoke this card , as it were , for the reasons cited in this directive , which is altogether a flexible and intelligent solution . 
allow me just to go very briefly into a second matter . 
most of those who have been working on the directive to date have been lawyers . 
we all know that there are still various parts of the Treaty , some of them very old , which are still referred to as EC . 
we are aware that this directive is founded on EC law and not on EU law . 
however , before the elections we - the Council , the Commission , Parliament , the press , unions and companies that is - worked towards making the Europe we have today more comprehensible to the citizens . 
we have expected the citizens to take on board the transition from EEC to EC to EU . 
they have now got to grips with " EU " . 
we would be doing neither ourselves nor the citizens any favours if we were to christen the product we are proposing to deliver " EC service provision card " and not " EU service provision card " . 
it is the world of the EU that the citizens are interested in , this is the one that counts in their eyes . 
I would urge the Council and the Commission to move in this direction . 
Mr President it is later than any of us thought it would be when we were planning for this session so I shall be very brief indeed . 
one of the reasons why we are late is because we spent time earlier today rightly stating the rooted opposition of this Parliament to any form of xenophobia or racism . 
this directive is , of course , not in itself directly about that . 
it is about attending to the needs of the internal market , creating flexibility and behaving in a reasonable and flexible way to enable the employment of third country persons both as employees and self @-@ employed . 
that is in itself also about avoiding being unduly restrictive towards the stranger simply because he or she is a stranger . 
we welcome that , and because we think it makes a sensible and proper provision , we will support the most liberal version which we understand to be consistent with the law . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I would firstly like to highlight the excellent work carried out by Mrs Berger and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market generally , which has incorporated innovative ideas into this directive , which I hope will be approved by the Commission and the Council . 
nevertheless , I have tabled an amendment . 
Mrs Berger , in your Amendment No 2 to Recital 6 , you mention legal security . 
the first point on which we disagree is the duration of three months for the residency permit , since all that does is create legal insecurity . 
you rightly raise the concern , also expressed by Mr Wieland , at the possibility of workers disappearing into thin air when their work permits expire , but I think that we would be making this even more likely by bringing in a three month permit . 
if the validity of the service provision card expires on a certain date , it must end on that date . 
legal security requires this . 
on the other hand , with regard to point d of Amendment No 10 , which refers to the first directive , you suggest that , for reasons of public security or public order regulations , a Member State may reject the validity of the card . 
there are already some ex ante controls laid down in article 4 of the directive . 
it makes no sense for any worker within the Schengen area , since he or she will already have undergone a screening process in order to enter the first Member State , and the second Member State would be justified in rejecting ex ante the entry of that worker into its territory . 
it therefore makes no sense to maintain that legal insecurity . 
in the case of a non @-@ Schengen state , in the last paragraph of Amendment No 22 , that possibility is contemplated , and is perfectly expressed , and I believe this provides greater legal security . 
the discretional power of the State , which you propose in point e of your Amendment No 10 , seems to me to be inconsistent with the rest of your excellent report . 
I would therefore ask Members to examine my amendment carefully , and I hope that tomorrow we will achieve a result . 
on the face of it these two proposals appear to be implementing certain procedural changes to facilitate freedom of movement across Europe and to give effect to the recent court cases Mrs Berger referred to in her opening remarks . 
however , in the case of the United Kingdom , we believe they go further than that in a manner which is unacceptable . 
partly this is substance and partly it is in respect of the legal base in regard to the special position of the United Kingdom . 
under the arrangements contained in the Treaties , the United Kingdom retains its border controls . 
under the system proposed in these pieces of legislation , third country nationals wishing to move to the UK under the procedures described , will do so by virtue of the service provision card issued by another Member State , thereby by @-@ passing UK border controls . 
if there is to be a change to the present United Kingdom border arrangements , that change should be made by the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament and not en passant by the European legislative process . 
for that reason , we shall vote against both these proposals . 
Mr President , Commissioner , first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner . 
these two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services . 
the new regulation for cross @-@ border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises . 
the strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card - and I am with Mr Wieland on this - are essential , for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts . 
why do I think we need the directive so much ? 
three reasons and they are as follows : on account of the economic importance of third @-@ country workers in the EU , in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market . 
therefore , whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions , I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible . 
my last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission . 
will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations ? 
how is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view , as this will have important implications , notably for the accession negotiations and for our country , which shares common borders with so many applicant countries ? 
Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , businesspeople have so far had to live with the fact that two of the key freedoms , namely the free movement of people and services , did not apply to them . 
indeed , they were still subject to endless bureaucratic immigration procedures of the Member States where a service had to be provided . 
there are approximately thirteen million third @-@ country subjects who reside within European territory . 
I assume that , although the exact number of businesspeople included in this figure is not known , their number will most definitely not be low . 
so , up to now , their access to the entire territory of the Union has not been regulated by Community legislation . 
the aim of the two present proposals for a directive is to promote the free movement of services within the internal market by means of introducing the EU service provision card . 
it seems important , in this respect , to underline that the service provision card will be issued in a flexible manner , namely within five days of a simple declaration ' s having been submitted to a Member State where the service will be provided ; and that , also to prevent misuse , this document will have a restricted period of validity which will not be automatically extended . 
I have also paid close attention to the concerns raised by the Commissioner . 
having also studied the amendments submitted , I concluded that we can go along with these concerns to a large extent and that this will be reflected in our voting behaviour tomorrow . 
may I , to finish off , thank Mrs Berger for the great care she has taken in studying the different amendments and for having , in that way , added an important degree of meaning to her report ? 
I think that , with this report , we are , once again , one step closer to the realisation of the internal market . 
Mr President , thank you very much for the opportunity you are giving me to go into the different amendments in more detail . in the course of my speech , I would also like to address Lord Inglewood regarding the remark he has just made . 
regarding the first proposal on third @-@ country employees , the Commission is prepared to adopt Amendments Nos 2 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 and 22 . 
amendments Nos 7 and 8 are acceptable too , provided the situation of posting is established in the Member State in which the service provider is established . 
the Commission also agrees with Amendment No 11 , except for the proposed period of previous employment of only three months , as I explained just now . 
we also welcome Amendment No 13 insofar as , as a result of this , the card ' s area of applicability is extended from one Member State to all Member States . 
in terms of comitology , Amendments Nos 14 and 21 also apply in part , insofar as the rights of Parliament are concerned . 
I regret that the Commission has found Amendment No 10 to be unacceptable as far as the three @-@ month period and the role of the Member State in which the service is provided are concerned . 
in this respect , the Commission supports Amendment No 22 , as I have already mentioned . 
the other amendments are unacceptable . 
personally , I am rather in favour of the term " EU service provision card " which is proposed in Amendment No 1 , but the Treaty of Amsterdam does not allow this . 
as Amendment No 18 refers to Directive 96 / 71 concerning the minimum wage which is already in force , no change is necessary . 
acceptance of Amendment No 17 by the Commission would mean that a simple duty of notification would apply if no valid card is issued . 
surely this is contrary to interests of public order within the Member States . 
amendment No 19 is also unacceptable , given my thoughts on Amendment No 10 . 
the Commission has the same opinion of similar amendments to the second proposal . 
I would like to add that Amendment No 10 to that proposal is wholly acceptable . 
as far as Amendment No 15 on the definition of the term " self @-@ employed " is concerned , the Commission will , as I have already remarked , provide an adequate solution to accommodate the objections lodged . 
I would now like to move on to Lord Inglewood ' s remark . 
he referred to United Kingdom border controls and I would like to say to him that Member States , and this includes the United Kingdom , are under no obligation at all to abolish or change controls at the existing borders . 
this applies , as already stated , to the United Kingdom and it also applies to Belgium , where it was recently of relevance . 
with regard to the remark made by Mr Karas , I am under the impression that he is talking about the possibility of people from Poland being used as employees in his country . 
the Commission would like to propose finding a solution to this problem which would then apply to all companies based in the European Union which employ staff from non @-@ EU countries . 
the question is , furthermore , one of whether the two cases should be treated in the same way . 
in my opinion , this is an issue which belongs to the debate on the enlargement of the European Union and perhaps not to the present debate . 
on behalf of the Commission , I would be more than happy to make myself available to Mr Karas in case he would like further information on this genuinely important point . 
I will keep myself free in this connection . 
finally , I would like to thank Parliament for the very constructive debate on the key aspects of these proposals and , in particular , of course , the rapporteur , Mrs Berger . 
thank you very much , Commissioner Bolkestein . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place tomorrow at 11.00 a.m. 
Court of First Instance 
Mr President , I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on a report , which , on reading it , gives the impression of simply confirming and accepting the Council ' s draft decision . 
however , this report is based on long and effective work which has already produced certain results , such as the incorporation into the Finnish Presidency ' s document of 7 December 1999 of the commitment to widen the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference to include a study of the future modification of the organisation , composition and competences of the Community Courts . 
for this reason , I would like to express my appreciation for the work carried out by Vice @-@ President Marinho . 
Mr President , the reform of the Community judicial system has become an essential requirement if , in the future , we intend justice to be done within reasonable time scales , and if , in the future , the European Union wishes to have a judicial system which is equal to the political project which we have embarked upon . 
today - and I must say this with pride and satisfaction - this Parliament has had a good opportunity to demonstrate the extent to which we Europeans believe that the European political project is much more than just an internal market , and that it is based much more on principles than on economic interests . 
behind these principles , Mr President , lies the justice system . 
however , justice delayed is justice denied , and we must reflect on this notion . 
the working document prepared by the Court itself contains alarming information . 
for this reason , the draft reform , which has been drawn up by the rapporteur , Vice @-@ President Marinho , is to be welcomed . 
it is true that it is a stopgap solution , but we must rely on stopgap solutions because , at the moment - as he himself has pointed out - we cannot expect a broad reform of the system from the Intergovernmental Conference . 
we have to offer solutions which , while provisional , help to provide a faster and more effective system of justice . 
I would like to make two observations during this intervention , which stem from the report itself , given this Parliament ' s obligation , in accordance with the Treaty , to produce a very succinct report , which does not go into depth . 
these are two of Vice @-@ President Marinho ' s ideas and , I believe , they are seconded by the whole of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . 
the first is that greater resources should be given to judges of first instance , and that they should be given one more référendaire . 
the second is that the translation services of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice should be separated . 
at the moment , the Court of First Instance has to wait a very long time for its judgements to be translated . 
according to the Treaty , one of the founding principles of this Community is linguistic and cultural plurality and there is no question of our overlooking the possibility of something as important as being able to read a judgement in our own language . 
since we are talking about the Intergovernmental Conference , let us consider just two points . 
the first concerns this Parliament . 
I believe that it is well worth insisting that we wish to participate more with regard to the Court of Justice , even in the appointment of judges . 
above all , we wish to see an extension of the competences of the Court of Justice , hand in hand with its capacity to fulfil its obligations , in other words , its resources . 
we wish to see its competences extended , especially within Chapter IV of the Treaty of the European Community and with regard to Chapter VI of the Treaty on European Union and also a review of certain possible options , certain clear limitations of protection in these areas which are of extraordinary importance to our citizens . 
and I refer once again to the declarations which we have heard in recent days . 
Mr President , I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and welcome the contents of this report . 
it has caused me to reflect on two problems which have come to me recently in my own constituency . 
both concern cases with decisions pending before the Court of Justice . 
the first relates to a large suspension bridge and whether or not tolls on it should be subject to VAT . 
the decision could have huge implications for our local economy . 
secondly there is a lady within thirteen weeks of retirement who is desperate for news of a decision that will affect seriously her financial circumstances in old age . 
these are just two examples of real life problems behind delays in Europe ' s system of justice . 
delays in justice can mean personal difficulties and even tragedy . 
this is not to say that all of our own national systems of justice are perfect , but all too often they may be waiting for a preliminary ruling from the European Court . 
amongst the statistics there is a worrying upward trend in the time taken to deal with preliminary references . 
this should not be taken as a criticism of the Court or of its staff , rather of the Court ' s structure and its lack of resources in a growing European Union . 
the proposals in this report are very welcome as an interim palliative , but Europe is a legal construction , its courts are central to its proper functioning . 
in the face of coming enlargement the IGC must deal with fundamental reform and restructuring of the court system . 
otherwise we will all , as elected representatives , be faced with more and more clamour from our citizens who are not getting access to quick and effective justice . 
Mr President , I too would like to thank the rapporteur for this excellent report . 
I also fully endorse his findings , in which , in particular , he suggests increasing the number of consultants for judges at the Court of First Instance and providing the latter with its own translation service . 
however I also believe that the reforms must go further than those we are to adopt here . 
for example , I believe it is worth considering making the Court of First Instance that of Last Instance , if applicable , and making this a final competence , in those spheres where benches of the Court , which resemble courts , pass judgement at a preliminary stage - I need only mention the keyword Alicante or whatever the plans are for European civil service law . 
I am also aware that we are probably also going to have to do something about the European Commission ' s inclination to renationalise competition decisions and transfer them back to national level . 
it seems to me that we need to give this some thought , as these cases will no longer fall to the Court of First Instance of course but to the Court of Justice as draft decisions . 
we need to consider how we will deal with situations of this kind . 
where possible , one should also have the opportunity to present draft decisions in competition cases to the specialist chamber within the Court of First Instance . 
on a final note , I too believe that OLAF requires monitoring under rule of law . 
as things stand , OLAF is in a vacuum and can do as it pleases . 
it is essential for OLAF to be monitored by a court . 
the only court that could reasonably do so would be the Court of First Instance . 
that would be another way of spurring the reform process on . 
Mr President , I would like to begin by joining those who congratulated the rapporteur on this work . 
the European Union is a system based on law . 
it must therefore have a system of courts to enforce that law . 
furthermore , if the courts cannot deal appropriately and expeditiously with the legal workload placed on them , what happens , as Madame Palacio Vallelersundi has already pointed out , is that justice delayed becomes , as we know , justice denied . 
the evidence of the court is that that is happening now and it points to steps which can be taken now to alleviate the problem . 
however , as Mr Marinho has pointed out , more is necessary , but that has to wait for the IGC , 
in my own country , mythology tells of the teeming hordes of faceless Brussels bureaucrats but it never mentions the number of European judges . 
there are less than three dozen at the apex of the European judicial order - hardly an overload given the responsibility of their tasks at the heart of the European legal system . 
the extent of their importance can be seen in the political implications of the delay in resolving the outstanding Anglo / French dispute over British beef which has caused such anger in my country and such frustration with the workings of the Union ' s disputes resolution procedures . 
this has been compounded , so some who advise me believe , by the Rules of Procedure in the French courts which make it well nigh impossible for non @-@ French nationals to proceed against the French Government . 
certainly it is perceived de facto to be impossible . 
this contrasts most unfavourably with the United Kingdom courts where Spanish fishermen successfully brought an action against the United Kingdom Government in circumstances which were very comparable . 
what is happening in France , Mr President , appears prima facie to be a case of discrimination against other EU nationals on grounds of nationality and as such to be in breach of the Treaties . 
I would therefore like to ask the Commissioner , who was kind enough to make some comments about my remarks in the previous debate , to look into this and to report back to Parliament and to me their findings . 
I would be grateful if the Commissioner could confirm in his final remarks that he will do this . 
Mr President , on behalf of Commission President , Mr Prodi , I would like to respond as follows . 
may I add that , on behalf of the Commission , I listened with great interest to the pleas which have been made just now and that I have a great deal of sympathy for the unease which underlies these pleas . 
the unease is justified . 
it has been said more than once : justice delayed is justice denied . 
the Commission sympathises with these considerations . 
in the light of this sympathy , I would like to continue my response as follows . 
as your Parliament is aware , the Commission is convinced that , without fundamental reform , the Community judicial bodies run the risk - in the short term - of no longer being able to carry out their task within reasonable deadlines . 
consequently , the Commission has asked for the advice of a group of experts regarding the entirety of the reforms which could be implemented in order to enable the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance to maintain the quality and coherence of their administration of justice in forthcoming decades . 
the Commission is aware of the request made by the Court of First Instance to increase its number of judges , but at the moment , the former is of the opinion that the proposed transfer of competence should be seen in the light of the study which I have just mentioned . 
in other words , once this study is complete , the Commission will issue its opinion as soon as possible . 
thank you , Commissioner . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place at 11 a.m. tomorrow . 
exceptional financial aid to Kosovo 
I have been informed that the rapporteur has been delayed for several minutes . 
I propose that we start the debate immediately . 
he will join us and speak as soon as he arrives . 
I therefore give the floor immediately to Mr Bourlanges , in his capacity as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets . 
Mr President , this is an important and urgent matter , and Parliament is complying with a request from the Commission to come to a decision quickly , because today , you must realise , men and women are dying in Kosovo quite simply because the temperature is 25 degrees below zero , these people are doing a great deal of work to ensure a minimum of maintenance and they have not been paid . 
an urgent request has been referred to us , and we approve it . 
we have been asked for EUR 35 million . 
we agree that it may be granted and we call on the Commission to be extremely vigilant in ensuring , once the decision has been taken , that the amounts are set aside and paid as quickly as possible . 
we are talking about macrofinancial aid . 
there are reactions to this in some quarters since it does not comply with the liberal canons of beauty which stipulate that there must be no financial intervention in order support an administration . 
this is not our opinion . 
our opinion is that it is vital to contribute to setting up an administration in Kosovo and that it is by no means absurd to contribute directly to the payment of public employees in this region . 
indeed that is something extremely useful that we could have done in Russia throughout the 1990s to prevent the disintegration of that state . 
the second important problem is that we have been asked for payments , the donors have made commitments and , obviously , we are the only ones actually paying . 
the other parties are not paying . 
we wish to see an end to this one @-@ sided situation regarding requests for financial aid . 
we would like the Commission to make commitments on the amendments we are proposing in regard to this . 
we would like to link the granting of all aid to the availability of the amounts due from the other donors . 
this is not in order to limit or be stingy with our financial contribution to Kosovo but , quite the contrary , to ensure that our contribution is being matched by the contributions of other donors . 
from that point of view , the proposed facility is a two @-@ phase aid facility and the second tranche must be released as soon as the donors have made clear their interest . 
finally , we have three questions for the Commission in this regard . firstly , we need the Commission to give us , on a regular basis , the list and the amounts that other donors contribute . 
when we come to pay , we want to know what the others are paying . 
secondly , we wish to see an exact progress report on the invitations to tender and the schedule for their implementation . 
during the budgetary procedure we were told that the funds for Kosovo must be voted on as a matter of urgency yet , according to our information , no invitation to tender has been published or initiated to date . 
this is serious , since it holds up the whole process of reconstruction in Kosovo . 
finally , and this follows on from what I have just said , we would like the Commission to inform the Committee on Budgets on a very regular basis , monthly , regarding progress on payments made . 
we have Commission documents which speak of firm commitments . 
it is not firm commitments that we need , just plain commitments would suffice , and we need to know what has actually been paid and , more especially , what has not been paid . 
Kosovo has suffered far too much from delays in payment . 
Mr President , if we are going to discuss Kosovo today , as we have done many times before , then we should also start by taking stock of what has actually already been done in Kosovo , or of whether in fact anything has been done at all . 
what I mean to say is that a few small steps have already been made along the path to normality , and it would be nice if they could at least be listed in the course of such a debate . 
as of 9 February , there will be something known as the Kosovo Transitional Council , which will comprise representatives of the political parties , the minorities and civil society , and which is intended to be a quasi interim parliament . 
this is a positive move and we welcome it , but I believe we need to equip the individuals concerned with an instrument and with strategy planning for what they are actually going to have to prepare , for elections are planned for the autumn . 
no one really knows what these elections are to lead to and what kind of parliament is to be formed as a result . 
no one knows what kind of authority this parliament is going to have vis @-@ à-vis UNMIK . 
in other words , there are quite a few imponderables that we are not being informed about and that others are presumably unable to get to grips with properly either . 
of all people , it is the Albanians , who are now being integrated into the transitional council , who ought in fact to have a little more idea as to what is in store for them . 
in addition to financial outlay and reconstruction work , urgent attention must also be given to restoring the coexistence of Serbs , Albanians and other minorities - not forgetting the Roma of course - in this country , so that at some point in the near future , on the road to coexistence , it will hopefully be possible for some form of reconciliation to take place . 
I would like to list again the things that have actually already been accomplished and that we can be pleased about . 
administration @-@ wise there are now 34 tax inspectors . 
that is excellent news ! 
there too , people are being encouraged to pay their taxes , for it will not do in the long @-@ term for everyone just to depend on handouts from the EU and from other donors ; some of the money for these activities must come from their own resources . 
it should also be noted that of the 19 departments , 4 already have administrative leadership , which represents an improvement on the situation there hitherto . 
there is something else that we are keen to develop and this is very important for a state under the rule of law . 
we have 130 judges and public prosecutors , who have now been sworn in , and who are ready to take up their work of dispensing justice , with a view to enriching the culture of tolerance there a little , and to at least being able to track criminals down and then secure convictions . 
another positive development I would like to remind you of is the fact that the old UCK is now bound up in the reconstruction of the country . 
I believe that is a good thing 
I wholly endorse what the Committee on Budgets had to say on financing and believe that we should remind the Commission that it really must press other donors to at long last pay their way . 
the EU Commission cannot pay for everything . 
it is responsible for reconstruction down there and for the Fourth Pillar , but it cannot constantly be called upon to pay Mr Kouchner ' s outstanding bills . 
one could do so once or twice , but I feel that the UN donors should contribute to this as well , for there is a very large hole , as yet unfilled , that we are unable to fill . 
we have a huge task in reconstruction and we will be judged according to how we fulfil it . 
Mr President , I would like to offer a few explanations . 
in a debate , there is always the danger that we will repeat much of what has already been said . 
however , I would like to concentrate on two points . 
firstly , I would like to make it very clear that the Union is the main contributor to aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo . 
I would like to point out to Mrs Albright that what we have read recently in the press is true , and that figures do not lie . 
let us make this clear , however much some people may not wish to believe it . 
the Union has decided to assist with a further EUR 35 million in additional macrofinancial aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo , on the basis of an IMF report which estimates that a further EUR 115 million is needed for that reconstruction . 
I would like to say to Mrs Pack that I am in complete agreement with her when she says that the Commission should insist that other contributors fulfil their commitments . 
I would also like to express my concern - which is very considerable - at the statement by some Ministers at the last Ecofin that says that it should be a priority of the Portuguese Presidency not to alter , in any circumstances , the financial perspectives agreed in Berlin . 
this calls into question the agreement which Parliament reached , with great difficulty , with the Council in December , according to which , when the Commission presents a multiannual programme for reconstruction , the financial perspectives would be reviewed where necessary . 
I would like to appeal to those Ministers not to cast doubt upon that agreement which was really very difficult to reach . 
I would like to ask the Commission - and I am glad that Commissioner Solbes is here with us this evening - to present us in time with this multiannual finance programme , with the corresponding report , requested by Parliament , so that it may be taken into account when the preliminary draft of the next budget is drawn up , as we have been promised . 
lastly , I would like to insist that , although we have agreed to EUR 35 million now , we know that this is a stopgap solution and that it is not enough , and we should therefore reach an agreement as soon as possible on the multiannual reconstruction programme for Kosovo , which is so badly needed . 
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , please excuse my late arrival , but this other political issue is still on the agenda today , more is the pity . 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs , Human Rights , Common Security and Defence Policy would advise you to release the EUR 35 million , and this piece of advice is given because this money can truly benefit those in need . 
the things that have given us cause for criticism are not so serious as to stop us wanting to help the people there . 
however , this does not mean that we will forget the criticism in the process . 
of course we would be a lot further on in our procedure if the Council administration had not forgotten to inform the European Parliament in good time and to provide it with official documents . 
only then would we have been able to conduct proper and searching discussions . 
I urge the administration to see to it that this does not happen in future . 
it is only because there are people in need that we are prepared to overlook this . 
however , we must be sure to introduce certain conditions here . 
one condition is that money should be given to those who will make sensible use of it and not to those who might use it for pursuing other aims . 
in other words , we should ensure that the money falls to Mr Kouchner ' s sphere of competence and not to other spheres . 
secondly , even if the Commission and the Council adopt a different position on this because they see real problems there , we believe that the other donors must also fulfil the obligations they have entered into . 
this mission is being conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and we cannot have a situation where the European Union is the only one to fulfil its obligations . 
it is no less incumbent on the other donor countries to fulfil their obligations within this timeframe , in the interests of the persons affected . 
this brings me onto the point that in future we are going to have to concern ourselves much more intensively with this issue in general terms , that is to say , not just with this specific project but with overall developments in south @-@ east Europe , and with the aid delivered there . 
this is another example of the fact that the European Union is prepared to help and to give money but the political leadership lacks coherence . 
we have so many coordinators , who , in turn , are responsible to so many employers , that we will soon have to employ a coordinator for the coordinators . 
perhaps it would be better , however , if the positions of responsibility within the European Union and the other institutions from the OSCE to the United Nations , were to get together some time to introduce a uniform , coordinated procedure and to examine how we can be of real assistance to the people there . 
I know that the Commission is thinking seriously about how to achieve this , but if the European Union is doing the most work out there , then it should also be given the leadership , and bring coherence to the situation , so that we can be of real assistance to the people . 
it makes no sense at all for the various international institutions and associations to be engaged in competition amongst themselves rather than investing all their energies in helping the people on the ground ! 
accordingly , we would like to take this opportunity to urge the Commission and Council Presidency to seize this political initiative , so as to avoid us landing in such a desperate situation again and having to restore our solvency at the end of a month . 
rather , we must use this initiative to establish a long @-@ term aid strategy for this country , and I hope that in the process , you will fulfil your political obligations at long last and not allow things to continue as they have been doing for the past few months . 
Mr President , when the Alliance intervened in Kosovo its objective was to re @-@ establish conditions in this province which would enable those who wished to do so to stay there or return , with respect for their own heritage and their own culture . 
if the Alliance is still active in that region , it is with the same objective . 
the day before yesterday I was pleased to hear an interview given by the KFOR commander showing how much better matters in connection with this in Kosovo were starting to be , particularly as regards security , crime levels had been restored to an acceptable level . 
those representing Europe who are active at the grass roots level in pursuing this objective , and I am thinking in particular of the Special Representative of the Secretary @-@ General of the United Nations , are on the verge of despondency precisely because , since matters are improving , there is less talk of Kosovo and the urgent nature of the aid which is needed there is becoming less apparent . 
we must work to ensure that , in this province and indeed throughout the Balkans generally , the rule of shopkeepers follows the rule of the warlords . 
it is true that economic aid is , in this respect , certainly an essential element to the scope of action afforded those people active at the grass roots level . 
let me reiterate the comment which Doris Pack has just made and stress that we , the Members of the European Parliament , must fulfil our own obligations in this regard , while ensuring , of course , that we are not the only ones to do so . 
Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , firstly I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur , Mr Brok , for his report . 
if the Council had worked as quickly as Mr Brok then we would certainly be a great deal further on . 
the Council ' s failings in this respect are a source of much regret . 
the rapporteur and the report are right to start from the premise that we should , and must , provide help swiftly , however it is also right to start from the premise that we will not provide help indefinitely or at random . 
I would particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 5 at this point , which clearly emphasises that it is only possible , and permissible , to use the funds from the special financial aid to finance those Kosovan budgetary requirements arising from public or semi @-@ public , communal and other authorities and institutions , which are controlled either directly or indirectly by UNMIK . 
Commissioner , it must be made clear that we support UNMIK and the institutions set up by the United Nations , in particular Pillar 4 of course , and it will not do for us to support the parallel structures that have formed in Kosovo and are still in place . 
what is to be done with this money ? 
I would like to highlight the issue of human rights . 
the West fought for human rights in Kosovo and what is happening there today ? 
we were able to put a stop to the mass expulsion campaign carried out by the Serbs but almost every day insupportable things happen : people are killed , people are prevented from living there or are prevented from living their lives as they see fit . 
every single day there are attacks on Serbs , on the Roma , on Bosnians , but attacks are also still carried out on Albanians . 
I was in fact shocked to read in the report , assuming this is true , how an Albanian doctor , who was working in the hospital in the Serbian quarter of Mitrovica under what must have been great difficulties , ultimately had to give up helping his kinsmen in this hospital because there were constant threats on his life . 
these are events and situations that cannot be tolerated . 
I hear - whether it is true or not I do not know - that the Serbs are even continuing to operate a mine in the Serbian sector of Kosovo . 
there are , at the very least , rumours that Serbian militias are up to their old tricks again . 
it is irrelevant , as far as I am concerned , as to whether it is Serbs , Roma , Bosnians or Albanians who are threatened or killed in Kosovo . 
it is also irrelevant , in my view , as to who is working towards separation and division in Kosovo . 
what is all @-@ important , to my mind , is that the bodies we are financing should achieve what we want them to achieve , a multi @-@ ethnic Kosovo that is , a Kosovo where people can live together . 
we need more police officers , as we have nowhere near enough . 
we need an independent judiciary - this would certainly be difficult to establish - , we also need funds for the office of High Commissioner for Human Rights . 
all of this needs to happen , and quickly too . 
if we do not provide rapid assistance then the situation will deteriorate and new conflicts and crisis situations may arise . 
that is why I believe that we were right to take action quickly , to recognise the urgency of the situation and make funds available . 
only , now we want to see this translate into deeds and we also want to see success in Kosovo , and I would urge the Commission to see that these funds are put to good use , notably for building up the police force and for establishing the judiciary . 
. 
( ES ) Mr President , I would like firstly to thank the Members , and especially the rapporteur , for the speed with which they have dealt with this issue . 
this will no doubt allow us to release the funds for Kosovo quickly and deal with the concerns which both Mr Swoboda and Mrs Pack have mentioned . 
I think I have seen three types of fundamental concern in tonight ' s debate . 
firstly , although much progress has been made , and we could mention customs administration , bank administration or tax administration , it is true that we must continue to move forward . 
however , in moving forward , what should we be financing ? 
this is the first point on which there is a certain amount of disagreement . 
in some of your amendments you propose that we limit further the type of bodies which can be provided with Union funds , for example , Amendments Nos 3 and 5 . 
in our view , however , in both respects , greater room for manoeuvre should be left to the administration of the United Nations which , on the ground , is more aware of the reality than we are . 
we believe that to prejudge , at the moment , where resources should be directed , would create more practical difficulties . 
in short , we should put our faith in those parties who , in these areas , are better equipped than us to make certain decisions . 
the second concern which I notice that many of you share - it was first expressed by Mr Bourlanges , but others have repeated it - refers to the situation regarding the other donors . 
is the Commission making an excessive effort while others are failing to cooperate ? 
some of the amendments in your report pose this question . 
for example , Amendments Nos 1 , 2 and 4 . 
I would say to Mr Bourlanges and to those who have raised this issue , that this is not the fundamental problem , although we recognise it totally . 
the fundamental problem is that , at the moment , the distribution of the burden amongst the different donors has been established in the statements of the High Level Steering Group , but it is also true that they have no legal status . this is simply a political commitment . 
that is the reason why , while accepting its spirit , we would ask that Amendment No 1 be worded differently - and we have sent a note to Mr Brok in this respect - so that it does not imply conditionality in the provision of Community resources . 
I would say the same about Amendment No 2 , which we would also accept with a slight modification , since the idea seems to us to be basically correct . 
amendment No 4 is of a similar nature . 
on this specific point , we can perhaps offer Mr Bourlanges greater satisfaction . 
we have already spoken to the Council so that it might include a Commission statement in its decision , establishing this element of conditionality . 
with regard to the second contribution , what we propose is that the exact amount and the date for the implementation of the second stage should be decided in accordance with the external financial needs of Kosovo and the contributions of other bilateral donors . 
in other words , we should not establish conditionality , or we believe that it is more effective not to establish conditionality from the start , but , nevertheless , we should establish it with regard to the possible liberalisation of the second stage . 
in this way , we would have no problem in acting immediately . we would not create problems for the Kosovar people , but , on the other hand , we would force the other donors to make their financial contribution in the way that we are doing . 
a third problem has been raised by Mrs Dührkop with regard to the multiannual programmes . 
I would remind you that these projects are multiannual . 
the programmes clearly have to take the annual budgetary contributions into account . 
lastly , I would like to make some observations on the requests for additional information which have been addressed to us . 
on the one hand , we have been asked to provide Parliament with information regarding the progress of invitations to tender and , in this respect , I can tell you that the Commission was last week able to provide Parliament ' s Committee on Budgets with the latest statement of contracts and payments carried out since the task force was sent into action in Kosovo . 
the Commission can commit itself to regularly informing Parliament of the invitations to tender which are published . 
we also wish to see these publicised on the Internet , so that there may be maximum transparency with regard to this specific point . 
a second point which I would like to comment on is the remaining information which may be of importance to Parliament with regard to the provision of macroeconomic assistance . 
in this respect I would like to tell you that the Commission is prepared to keep the chairmen of the various committees involved in this area regularly informed , on a confidential basis , if the nature of the information provided requires confidentiality , on the different schemes being implemented for macroeconomic assistance . 
thank you very much , ladies and gentlemen , and I hope that , with the final decision of the Council , we can release these funds and make a positive contribution to maintaining the considerable effort being made in Kosovo by different parties , so that we might achieve that situation of greater coexistence and peace which we all wish to see . 
Mr President , I am pleased to see the convergence of viewpoints there is between Parliament , particularly the Committee on Budgets , and the Commission , and we can assure you that , for our part , we shall always be there to assist the Commission in the performance of its duties . 
I do , however , have one small concern , when I hear the Commissioner on the subject of the commitments made by their services in the Committee on Budgets . 
there was a clear agreement , good or bad I will not say , but there was a contract . there was a clear understanding between the Commission services and the Committee on Budgets that there was agreement on Amendments 4 and 7 , i.e. on the idea of linking the mobilisation , the implementation , of the second tranche of macrofinancial aid to the condition that donors should first have fulfilled their relative obligations in terms of payment . 
but , if I understand what Mr Solbes Mira says correctly , then this undertaking was only a tentative one . 
Commissioner , an agreement is an agreement . 
can you confirm the agreement made by your services in the Committee on Budgets , yes or no ? or are you going to drop this proviso , thus breaking the undertaking made to us ? 
no , Mr Bourlanges , I think it is a substantive problem . 
the problem is how in practical terms to implement the compromise which we accepted . 
what I proposed to you , and what I still say , is that the Commission will make a statement , in the Council Decision , something like this : 
the exact amount and timing of implementation of the second tranche will be decided in due course taking into account developments in Kosovo ' s external financing needs and contributions from other bilateral donors . 
with this , we believe that we are totally in line with what we agreed . 
I am simply asking the Commission to come and inform the Committee on Budgets before implementing the second tranche . 
I agree , absolutely . we shall do so . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place at 11 a.m. tomorrow . 
ALTENER 
the next item is the report ( A5 @-@ 0011 / 2000 ) by Mr Langen , on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European Parliament and Council decision adopting a multiannual programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community - Altener ( C5 @-@ 0333 / 1999 - 1997 / 0370 ( COD ) ) 
Mr President , I would like to thank Mr Langen - although he is not actually here - for the work he has done to carry through the programme both in Parliament and in the Council . 
the project has been long and problematic . 
in future too , there will be a need to invest heavily in research into the use of renewable energy sources . 
although there is much that is good about the new directive , it is nonetheless not without its defects . 
one example is the use of peat . 
peat cannot be classified as belonging in the same group as fossil fuels . 
if peat cannot be classified directly as a renewable , non @-@ fossil energy source , it must form its own class , especially as far as the issue of environmental taxation is concerned . 
it is not right that peat should be judged according to the same criteria as , for example , coal . 
the development of renewable energy sources is a partial solution to ending the Union ' s dependence on imported energy . 
research is particularly essential with regard also to the EU ' s next round of enlargement . 
dependence on imported energy affects worst of all many Eastern European countries , whose economic structure is still suffering from the dependence created in the times of the Soviet Union on Russian energy . 
the EU must adhere to the Kyoto Protocol on climate . 
we are all concerned about the environment and our children ' s future . 
the share that renewable energy sources have in total energy production must be increased , but it has to be done in a rational manner . 
we have to remember that our basic energy production cannot be based on renewables for a long time to come . 
for that we need a form of energy production that does not harm the climate : nuclear energy . 
Mr President , on behalf of the PSE Group , I welcome the fact that we have reached an end result in the conciliation procedure for the ALTENER II Programme . 
firstly , however , I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur , Mr Langen , for the truly excellent work he has done on this report . 
I would also like to thank the leader of the delegation in the Conciliation Committee , Mr Provan . for as Mr Langen said just now , we certainly had a tough fight on our hands in the Conciliation Committee . 
however , we can see today that the conciliation end result quite clearly bears the trademark of the European Parliament throughout . 
Mr Langen mentioned that a series of Parliament ' s demands and points it had to make relating to content were adopted and - as has already been mentioned - we were almost able to meet the Council halfway on even the most contentious point , that of the financing for this multiannual programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community . 
this is not satisfactory - I would like to make that quite clear . however , we agreed to this compromise because it was important to us to enable this programme to be launched very soon indeed . 
for in the course of the next few years , the proportion of renewable energy sources is to double , accounting for at least 12 % of energy consumption . 
this is the European Union ' s declared aim . 
that being the case , since ALTENER is the only EU programme to have the exclusive aim of promoting renewable energy sources , it will certainly be have a key role . 
to my mind though , what is particularly important about the ALTENER II programme are the new actions for relieving market saturation by renewable energies and those for implementing , supporting and monitoring the Community strategy and the Community action plan . 
we now have available to us a working paper from the Commission ' s services on a breakthrough campaign , which is in fact a crucial element of this Community strategy . 
it contains plans for financial support for all the main renewable energy sources sectors . 
it is very important for this ALTENER programme to go hand in hand with this campaign and to support it . 
the overall investment costs for this campaign are estimated to be approximately EUR 30 billion . 
75 % -80 % of this is to come from private sources , and this will be supplemented by public funds from the Member States and from the regions . 
in this respect , the ALTENER programme will be able to create new incentives and smooth the way for investment , and help us to realise our ambition , in the interests of environmental protection , the economy and creating new jobs . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I would like to thank Mr Langen for his excellent work in this important matter . 
the conclusion reached regarding conciliation with regard to the Altener programme as put forward by the Conciliation Committee is , after all the difficult phases it has been through , at least satisfactory . 
most of Parliament ' s amendments have been taken into account and the fact that the programme has seen its total funding rise to EUR 77 million must be seen as positive . 
the Union has ambitious goals with regard to increasing the use of renewable energy . 
there is very little in the way of appropriations to meet these targets , however . 
the appropriations are needed for pilot projects , research , information exchange and also to cultivate more positive attitudes towards the use of renewable energy . 
the main responsibility for increasing the use of renewables is to be borne by the Member States . 
this programme will hopefully encourage Member States to act with greater determination to increase the use of renewable energy . 
however , in the future , the Union will also have to increase its own input in promoting the use of renewable energy and ensuring that renewable energy is launched without obstacles on the market . 
promoting the use of renewables is especially important for the environment . 
the Union cannot achieve its environmental goals unless the use of renewables is actively stepped up . 
renewable energy sources lower dependency on imported energy and their increased use boosts competitiveness . 
Europe will also be able to achieve a leading position in the industry that supplies equipment needed for the exploitation of renewable energy . 
we should also remember that the use of renewable energy sources has a positive impact on regional development and employment . 
may I also venture to raise the matter of peat ? 
peat is not mentioned in the list of renewable energy sources . 
however , it is important , at least in Finland , as a sustainably used , slowly renewable energy source . 
I hope that in the future it can be included in the list of renewables . 
Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , the Group of the Greens / European Free Alliance are pleased with the agreement which has been found , and their thanks go to all those who negotiated so well in favour of an amendment which the Greens were almost the authors of . 
it is interesting for me , as a new Member of Parliament , to see that the budget provides for hundreds of millions of euros annually for tobacco cultivation . 
this is a limited sector of the economy which creates hardly any jobs and is not competitive on the world scale . 
in contrast with that , I see the amounts allocated for renewable energies , which are not only an ecological element but which look set to undergo considerable economic expansion . 
seeing the market share that small countries such as Denmark have been capable of acquiring in this field , because they were the first ones to develop that area , gives one food for thought , I feel , and I think that in the long term it will ultimately be necessary to actually increase the budgets for renewable energies . 
one last word regarding the programme . I think it very important for renewable energies to be firmly established in the regions so that they can develop in the long term and so that they can contribute to the economy and to job creation there . 
in order to ensure that at least 50 % of the energy mix comes from renewable energy sources , it is not enough to deal with a few hot spots that will be more profitable in the short term . 
Mr President , may I commence by complimenting Mr Langen on his work . 
the activities of the ALTENER programme will promote renewable energy sources and I believe that such programmes merit financial support at the developmental stage as they offer enormous commercial potential in the future . 
for this reason , I am particularly pleased to see the monies focussed on projects by small and medium @-@ sized enterprises . 
the internationally agreed objectives for reducing emissions cannot be achieved by these programmes alone . 
in this regard , it must be remembered that energy policy remains within the national remit . 
it is imperative that national governments lend their full support to improving energy efficiency and developing renewables . 
I am pleased that Ireland has recently announced that it is going to spend £ 125 million on the development of an environmentally sustainable energy sector . 
I would hope that the contribution of ALTENER would lead to more initiatives . 
as the final text rightly states , actions such as these can play a role in reducing regional disparities . 
I can vouch that I have already received significant interest in the ALTENER programme from my own constituency of Leinster , a significant portion of which falls within Ireland ' s only Objective I region . 
I support all efforts to close the gap in economic development in infrastructural provisions , including the energy sector . 
in short , we face a major challenge in meeting our commitments on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector under the Kyoto Protocol , while at the same time promoting growth in our economies . 
ALTENER will make a valuable contribution to the combined efforts of the Member States . 
Mr President , Mr Langen , ladies and gentlemen , as our rapporteur mentioned , we are coming to the end of a long and difficult process of conciliation with the Council on the ALTENER programme . 
Mr Langen mentioned that the implementation budget proposed by the Council was initially FF 74 million , whereas the Commission proposed 81.1 million , a figure which the European Parliament supported . 
an initial conciliation meeting was not successful , because the Council would not at that time accept an increase of EUR 1.9 million . 
we could not agree with a proposal like this , which challenged the authority of the European Parliament . 
a second round of conciliation achieved an increase of EUR 1.1 million in order to reach this compromise figure of 77 million . 
in fact , renewable energies unquestionably provide a way of achieving these objectives . 
however , in spite of the reservations I am expressing on the paucity of the financial allocation , I personally support the compromise , by virtue of the programme ' s content , to which the European Parliament made an active contribution as , following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty , this sector become subject to codecision . 
it is practically certain that , with the raft of proposed measures and actions , it should be possible to approach the objective of a 12 % renewable energy share by 2010 , doubling the current rate , as long as the appropriations including state appropriations are made available . 
this programme , together with the SAVE II programme , integrating the environmental aspect into energy policy , establishes a foundation for a real Community strategy to achieve clean energy while reducing our dependence . 
and , in conclusion , Mr President , let me also insist upon the fact that , in addition to the measures proposed , there are also legislative measures and , most especially , adequate budget allocations to back up these political initiatives . 
and I shall end , of course , by congratulating Mr Langen , our rapporteur , on his work , as well as all the members of the committee and of the Conciliation Committee . 
. 
( ES ) Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , firstly I wish to express my satisfaction with the agreement reached on the ALTENER II programme in the Conciliation Committee and associate myself with the comments of the different speakers and , of course , point out that this agreement will allow the ALTENER programme to be incorporated soon into the framework energy programme . 
all of this will provide greater coordination , transparency and efficiency in our energy programmes , into which we will also have to incorporate the SAVE programme , which we will be discussing soon . 
I would like to say that the work carried out during this time by Parliament has been of a high quality , and I therefore congratulate the rapporteur , Mr Langen and also all the various speakers who have spoken both in committee and here in plenary . 
obviously , there have been arguments , we had to go to conciliation , as the rapporteur and Mr Caudron reminded us a moment ago , since at the first meeting no result was achieved , and there had to be a second meeting , despite the fact that the figures were not excessive . 
however , I believe that in the end we have reached a reasonable agreement , which , like all agreements , is perhaps not perfect , but which , I believe , allows us to push ahead with the projects with which we were dealing . 
I would therefore like once again to congratulate the rapporteur , Mr Langen , on his work , to thank the speakers and , of course , to acknowledge the actions of Vice @-@ President Provan throughout the conciliation procedure , who contributed efficiently to the achievement of a positive result . 
I would also like to recognise the reasonable and flexible action of the Council . 
save 
Madam President , I would like to thank the Council and Commission for a useful and thorough conciliation procedure and one that was good @-@ tempered all round , which is not always the case . 
I am happy to say that I can regard the end result of conciliation as very satisfactory for Parliament as the joint text has incorporated all its amendments either in full or in a re @-@ worded form . 
the financial amount finally allocated to the programme is also a considerable improvement on the Council ' s proposal at second reading which we found completely unacceptable and we have made quite a lot of progress there . 
I therefore propose that this House agree to adopt the proposals on SAVE and the conclusion at the conciliation at third reading . 
I would like to remind the House that at second reading Parliament adopted this report containing eight amendments , including a re @-@ instatement of the Commission ' s original budget . 
the Commission accepted five of the proposed amendments including the budgetary allocation and I thank the Commission for their continued support on the budget during the conciliation procedure as what the Council had proposed was unacceptable . 
during the procedure , agreement was reached on the studies and actions to devise , implement , complement and assess the Community measures . 
compromise wordings were agreed for five other amendments including legislative and non @-@ legislative measures and the inclusion of local energy centres and , very importantly , the energy audit systems in the review of progress on energy efficiency . 
I hope that you will all agree that this is important progress . 
the issue of the financial envelope was staunchly defended by Parliament in the face of the Council ' s very meagre opening offer . 
in the event we had to have several meetings before the Council finally increased this to a substantial amount . 
we got an increase of 2 million on their starting figure which was a decisive increase which I can recommend to you and which the Commission confirmed that it could implement the programmes under . 
this was an important consideration for us . 
I would like to say however that it is , and has always been , a very modest budget and therefore the funding for this programme is more symbolic than real . 
funding for energy saving still comes primarily from the Member States . 
we have to bear that in mind when approving this programme . 
if there is more symbolism than reality in what we can achieve at Community level , this is a pity because there is a lot of enthusiasm at local level for action , including Community actions , on energy saving . 
where the Community can step in is to put the local activators in touch with each other so that they can actually not re @-@ invent the wheel in every region . 
we have an important part to play in the Community in the European Union in this regard . 
save is the only Community @-@ wide programme dedicated to promoting the rational use of energy . 
it focuses on non @-@ technical elements , helping to build energy efficiency infrastructure , and the purpose of the programme is to create an environment in which investments and energy efficiency will be promoted . 
here we need to realise that there is also a market opportunity in industry for energy savings . 
we have heard a lot about difficulties of competition in renewable energies but energy efficiency saves money for business , saves money all round in fact and therefore it should be non @-@ problematical . 
it is something that we can all support . 
I have to say , like motherhood , although we all support it , sometimes we do very little substantially and concretely to help the mothers or the people engaged in energy @-@ saving . 
we could do rather more , considering that we have made great commitments in reducing CO2 and greenhouse gases and to reduce dependence on energy imports . 
we are not taking the kind of action that the citizens want to see . 
we are not making the connection so that the citizens can actually do something concretely either at home or in their offices or in industry to support action against global climate change . 
if we could communicate this it would be a very interesting thing to do . 
I would like once again to thank all who helped in this conciliation process . 
as Mrs Ahern has explained very well , the budgets of both the SAVE programme and the ALTENER programme , are basically symbolic budgets , since the burden is shouldered by the countries , the States of the Union , the regions or even , in some cases , the local authorities . 
furthermore , behind these programmes , that is to say , the SAVE programme , which concerns greater efficiency and energy savings , and the Altener programme , which concerns renewable energy , there lies an extremely important technological challenge , which , from an economic point of view , may offer significant opportunities to industry and also for the creation of jobs in our countries and therefore in the Union as a whole . 
with regard to the parliamentary procedure , I would like once again to thank all of those who have acted and spoken , especially the rapporteur , because the majority of Parliament ' s amendments have been incorporated into the proposal accepted by the Council , in this case practically all of them , although with some modifications . I would also like to express my gratitude because an improvement on the initial offer of funds has been achieved . 
this improvement has been achieved with fresh funds , as we said at the time , and it has been achieved while safeguarding this Parliament ' s prerogatives and competences . 
from the point of view of the Commission , in this interinstitutional game , I believe that this is important and I am very happy to highlight it . 
I would like once again to thank all the speakers , and also , especially , the Vice @-@ President , Mr Provan , for his magnificent work throughout this debate , particularly during the conciliation procedure , as well as the chairman of the Committee on Industry and , also , above all , the rapporteur , Mrs Ahern , and all the Members who have participated in this work . 
thank you , Commissioner . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place at 11 a.m. tomorrow . 
culture 2000 
Madam President , I actually feel that we ought not to have continued discussing this because we said everything there was to say in the last debate . 
unfortunately , there has been no change in the way that the Council always talks about culture but fails to allocate any money for it . 
we have the feeling , and are in fact convinced , that the Member States would be more than happy to withdraw the things they wrote in 1992 in the Treaty of Maastricht . 
for no one is very keen to spend money on culture . 
sadly that is the case and we must face facts . 
I would like to thank the rapporteur , who really has chipped away tirelessly at this monumental task , in conjunction with the Commissioner of course . 
we simply had to take on board the fact that whilst we actually attained our goal in terms of content , of course the same could not be said of the financial aspect . 
one seems powerless in a dialogue of this kind , where the other party actually has to reach a unanimous decision . what kind of horse @-@ trading system is this ? 
certainly not a fair one ! 
there are always people who are in a position to reject everything and there we are on the other side , begging for a little more money for culture . 
it is downright scandalous what goes on ! 
it is an awful sort of horse @-@ trading , based on unequal positions ! 
nevertheless , we are pleased that this programme has turned out in the way that we wanted it to . 
it lives up to the expectations the citizens have of us . 
we will support small and medium @-@ sized events , not the large ones , and we will afford individual citizens and also the smaller operators easier access . 
I believe that the fact that Culture and , fittingly , Education and Youth now fall within the same Commissioner ' s remit , will also serve to guarantee more synergy between these three programmes , which are certainly worthwhile programmes for the citizens of the European Union . 
if one puts all the money together and creates synergy then one can be a tiny bit satisfied , but then only a tiny bit . 
it is my hope that we will be able to achieve a lot of synergy with a little money . 
Madam President , I agree with the fine words with which the rapporteur began his intervention and I must add that , during the conciliation procedure , I was personally a little disappointed with the Council . 
on the one hand , it continued to refuse to accept the term " European cultural policy " or other similar terms , even undervaluing the terms of the Treaty , and it defines " Culture 2000 " simply as an instrument for cultural cooperation and no more . 
on the other hand , it has shown complete intransigence with regard to the funds requested by this Parliament , which were minimal anyway . 
incidentally , this last point would be unfair to fourteen Members of the Council , since it was just one , the Netherlands , which was responsible for that intransigence . 
it has once again been demonstrated that conciliation is incompatible with the demand for unanimity in the Council . 
this demand makes conciliation almost impossible and even affects the dignity of the parliamentary institution . 
however , Madam President , these considerations must not hide the fact that the joint text which we will vote on tomorrow , and which the Socialists will vote in favour of , will put in place one of the European Union ' s most important programmes . 
by taking action in the field of culture , we are directly contributing to the construction of a European soul , especially given the fact that the sub @-@ programmes which make up " Culture 2000 " are superb . 
in recent years , these have been amongst the programmes most eagerly accepted by the youngest and most dynamic citizens of the European Union . 
lastly , I would like to mention the profoundly human impression I have formed of the rapporteur , Mr Graça Moura : his knowledge , his sense of balance , his intellectual qualities , make him , in my opinion , the best possible rapporteur this report could have had . 
congratulations ! 
finally , I would like to congratulate Commissioner Reding , Vice @-@ President Imbeni and Mr Gargani , chairman of the Committee on Culture , for the firm and intelligent position which , each within his own role , they have maintained during the entire conciliation process . 
Madam President , Commissioner , rapporteur , I would like to start by thanking Mr Graça Moura most warmly for the tremendous efforts he has put into the discussion of this Culture 2000 programme . 
it has been said before , and we have discussed this between ourselves on various occasions , that culture is , of course , extremely important as an area unto itself - I would like to stress this once again - but also as the instrument par excellence for furthering the European idea . it is also of great importance to citizens . 
we should , above all , not lose sight of this . 
the impetus given to the European idea by this programme is having an enormous impact , especially on small linguistic areas such as the Netherlands which not only has national potential , but is also relying on support from the programme , mainly from a language point of view . 
today , we have arrived at the end of a long road . 
I would nonetheless like , as others have done , to touch upon the procedure , which is unclear and , above all , unwanted . 
codecision and unanimity do not go hand in hand . 
they are like a snake biting its own tail . 
there is little room for negotiation if one of the parties states beforehand : anything is open for discussion , as long as the budget stays fixed . 
as it happens - and I would like to add this for the sake of the Netherlands - negotiations on this matter have taken place at an earlier stage . 
the result is 30 % growth , so we are not completely dissatisfied with the result . 
of course , it is always better to make more funding available more quickly - and I for one will always advocate this - but I do think that this programme opens up good opportunities for quite a few programmes . 
I would like to stress that culture is not only funded from this particular pot . 
culture does not only fall under the banner of culture but also under that of all kinds of other areas . 
a great deal of money for culture is also set aside in the Structural Funds , and this is something which we should definitely consider and bear in mind . 
fortunately , I am on the Committee on Regional Policy . 
so I myself will make sure that this aspect receives due attention . 
I think that we have also opted in favour of allowing the budget to be of an adequate size because , if it happens to be cancelled , then surely this does not benefit the citizen . 
I have always given the rapporteur my backing in this respect . 
however , I do think that it is necessary , as he always states too , that , in the next IGC , changes will be made to codecision , when unanimity will no longer be necessary . 
we are very positive about the many improvements which have been made : no more mega @-@ projects , room for cultural networks , and sufficient attention to promoting reading , translating and translation companies . 
this is especially important to smaller linguistic areas . 
I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and also Mrs Reding for Culture 2000 . 
all that remains for me to say is : time to get down to business . 
Madam President , all that I wanted to say has been covered by those fellow Members who spoke before me and I think there is unanimity among the groups in the European Parliament and among those of us on the Committee on Culture . 
I too must say that I will be voting for this joint text for a Council and European Parliament decision with a very heavy heart . 
not because our delegation , our rapporteur and the chairman Mr Gargani did not work exceptionally well - they worked very hard indeed - and not because I have any strong objection to Commissioner Reding ' s attitude - I think that , given the framework she was operating in , her attitude was particularly positive - but because of the negative and unacceptable position adopted by the Council . 
it is shameful ! 
that figure of EUR 167 million for so many years is a disgrace for the European Union ! 
so long as we continue to have unanimity , so long as yesterday the Dutch Government was able to impose those EUR 167 million as an ultimatum and so long as a government with Mr Haider will soon be telling us what cultural activities we can pursue , we will never progress . 
that is why it is very important for the Intergovernmental Conference to take important decisions and to cut free so that the European Parliament ' s efforts to create a meaningful cultural impetus within the European area may be rid of this constraint by all the governments . 
Madam President , I absolutely agree with the rapporteur ' s analysis and I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Culture , Mr Gargani , for his praiseworthy work in a mediation process that was also , considerably difficult . 
of course , we felt the need to simplify and consolidate the previous programmes , but everyone hoped that the Culture programme could help to promote , for example , the unique features of each cultural sector , even - and I could say especially - of the unique features of less well @-@ known sectors . 
we hope that this , at the least , will come about during the evaluation process . 
we sincerely believe in the validity of cultural action , among other things in terms of making a contribution to the social , as well as economic , development of a people . 
and a fully @-@ fledged Europe can compete with the rest of the world and fully rediscover its roots , highlight its common cultural heritage and enhance and restore dignity to cultural and linguistic islands that until now were less well @-@ known . 
the overall growth of the European Union and the awareness of being European citizens : this is why we believe that the Culture 2000 programme , albeit with a scarcity of funds , can make a considerable contribution to this great common goal . 
Madam President , I will add to the unanimity of the evening and say that I support the adoption of Culture 2000 and add my thanks to the rapporteur , Mr Graça Moura , who took over from our former colleague Nana Mouskouri . 
both of them have done a first @-@ class job . 
alongside the debate we had earlier on in the day , culture may not seem that important , but it is ; and we have to be careful in the European Parliament not to allow the urgent to get in the way of the important . 
why do I say that culture is important ? 
well in simple economic terms , Europe ' s culture adds to genuine prosperity . 
where would Europe ' s tourism industry be without the richness of our culture ? 
but , more importantly than that , cultural activities are what make mankind civilised . 
culture is at the root of our democratic beliefs ; and an uncultured society is not going to sustain tolerance and freedom and democracy . 
cultural diversity is important , and it is under threat . 
however , it is not under threat from Europe . 
many people in my country say they see British culture being under threat , for example , from Portugal , from Germany , from Finland , for heaven ' s sake . 
we do drink port wine , and we do like German beer , and we even use Finnish saunas , but it is not from Europe that culture is under threat . 
what I do see right across Europe is people drinking Coca Cola , eating hamburgers , wearing baseball caps , watching Hollywood films and often doing all this at the same time . 
now I do not believe that protectionism and regulation is the way of defending Europe ' s culture , but I do believe in lending a helping hand when we can . 
that is what Culture 2000 is about . 
so , I say to the Council of Ministers : keep this programme genuinely under review . 
are we doing enough ? 
and , I say to Madame Reding , thank you for the support and the help you have given so far , keep up the good work , we are on your side . 
Madam President , I too would like to warmly thank the rapporteur , Graa Moura , and Commissioner Reding , for their contribution to the creation of this programme . 
the Culture 2000 programme was finalised at the end of last year as a result of conciliation between Parliament and the Council . 
the outcome can be considered reasonable , when we take into account the fact that the adoption of the programme called for a unanimous decision to be made in the Council . 
we have to hope that at the forthcoming IGC we will also end up with qualified majority decisions in the area of culture . 
it is really strange that legislation that adheres to the codecision procedure when it is being debated requires unanimity for it to be passed in the Council . 
the framework programme on culture is replacing the present Kaleidoscope , Ariane and Raphael programmes . 
when implementation of the programme begins , I hope in particular that the scope it offers for literature and the translation of books can be utilised to the full . 
I believe and hope that , despite the assault on us all of the new technology , literature will maintain its status . 
we need the depth of spirit that literature provides in the midst of a culture that has a short attention span and is inclined towards the superficial . 
literature likewise plays an important part in the way it transmits our cultural heritage , increases mutual familiarity and preserves linguistic wealth and the diversity of tongues . 
in this connection , I am very glad to say that soon after the Socrates and Culture 2000 programmes get under way officially at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in March in Lisbon , the country holding the presidency of the EU is to organise a conference to discuss the situation of public libraries . 
I hope that this conference will also encourage the Commission to take the issue of libraries into active consideration in the fifth framework programme in respect of the information society . 
Madam President , Commissioner , rapporteur , ladies and gentlemen , somehow or other , today ' s agenda has come full circle . 
we have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values , about tolerance , human dignity , human rights , a positive approach to the enlargement process , transparency and respect for each other . 
youth , education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values , for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes . 
the funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union ' s goals . 
cultural activity creates identity . 
cultural activity is an expression of individuality , of an individual ' s own personality ; it builds relationships and communicates . 
we want a colourful Europe . 
we want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity . 
we want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences . 
that is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget , the allocation of funds that is , into the different types of measure . 
that is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures , because we want to promote the small and medium @-@ sized entities and activities performed by individuals ; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom . 
I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say . 
there is a contradiction in terms - unanimity principle , codecision procedure , and Conciliation Committee - and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen , and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness . 
Madam President , as we have heard , all the groups have a common political enemy in the Council . 
it is not by chance that the Committee on Culture ' s decisions are constantly ending up in the conciliation procedure , for one or other Member State in the Council always holds culture hostage to other interests . 
in this way , the unanimity principle has shown itself to be a blockading instrument of the first order . 
the battle for a workable compromise lasted almost two years , and now , at long last , the European Parliament can give the go @-@ ahead . 
the Council could not be moved , not even when the precursor programmes Kaleidoscope , Ariane and Raphael finished . 
a pilot programme was called for to bridge the gap . 
this showed up the weaknesses of the European Union ' s cultural policy activities once again . 
the political fight over funding and programme structuring is out of all proportion to the volume of support . 
out of 410 applications in 1999 only 55 projects with a low overall volume of EUR 6.07 million could be considered . 
the Council was not prepared in the case of this particular programme to accommodate Parliament to the tune of even a single euro ! 
and so the moderate sum of 167 million will stand until 2004 . 
that is the same as a single , medium @-@ sized , German opera house ' s expenditure over the same period , when here in Europe this sum has been earmarked for 29 countries over a period of five years ! 
there is a blatant discrepancy here ! 
and so we are going to have to be content , albeit very grudgingly , with the fact that we have at least managed to achieve something in terms of content . 
previous speakers have already kindly pointed this out . 
we can only hope that it will , after all , be possible to persuade the Council to have a change of heart one day . 
perhaps the Council will come to understand that cultural activities do the European Union good , not harm ! 
cultural cooperation - and this was also mentioned earlier - truly creates identity , far more so than any transport directive , however important it might be . 
providing support for culture meets with wide @-@ spread acceptance , and this certainly cannot be said of all policy decisions . 
what , may I ask , is the Council afraid of ? 
Madam President , whoever has the honour , like myself , to chair the Committee on Culture , cannot fail to agree with the comments from various Members and can but congratulate the rapporteur , and Commissioner Reding , with whom he worked and who , even during the conciliation process , had difficult moments and opposed the Council - you have heard this said by everyone . 
I have noticed how the principle of a necessary culture at European organisational level has been firmly asserted , but there are few opportunities to address all the requests that the European States will make . 
I shall simply stress my own personal complaint because , in the end , we did not manage to adopt a review clause . 
however , Mrs Reding was certainly receptive and farsighted , and personally undertook to review the issue and carry out a comprehensive assessment within a few years , and therefore to change the situation . 
the cultural programmes launched in years past - Kaleidoscope , Ariane and Raphael - are being replaced by a single programme , Culture 2000 , where - and I must stress this here very forcefully - the rapporteur censures a position which should give the European Parliament cause for reflection - as someone said this afternoon - but which still underlines the huge importance of being part of a vast community where cultural interpretation is a democratic factor . 
this is not rhetoric , but the new embodiment of a modern liberalism which unites the European States and constitutes a turning point for the European Parliament and the Commission . 
man and culture are priorities , and culture can result in economic growth . 
let us contemplate this result , derive satisfaction from it and grant ourselves a licence to fully embrace this worthwhile strategy . 
Madam President , may I first thank Mr Graça Moura for weaving his way through the rather tough textiles and fibres that have made up this conciliation tapestry . 
it seems to me when entering the conciliation process for Culture 2000 , having a poet to lead us in our endeavours is entirely appropriate . 
again , because these conciliations are not entirely straight forward , we have to thank Vice @-@ President Imbeni for his exemplary negotiating skills in the convoluted field of ensuring that cultural expenditure is wisely deployed and given to us in our Community . 
the fundamental question , it seems to me , that faces this Parliament , the Commission and the Council is : what is Europe ? 
what does it mean and what does Europe give us over and above the parameters of our national boundaries ? 
Europe is its people , its history and now its collectivity ; but the reason why Culture 2000 is so important to us is for this : I will wager that when we ask the question - ' What is Europe ? ' - we answer it by saying , ' It is our art , it is our literature and it is our heritage . ' 
that is what Culture 2000 represents . 
it represents the possibility of sustaining a European identity in the twenty @-@ first century , an identity which eschews the echoes of division , of war , of poverty , of opportunity , of poverty dans la realité . 
and more than this - and this is more prosaic , Madam President , it means that we have the ability to learn from previous policy initiatives by putting them into action in new programmes that are comprehensive , that are cross @-@ cutting and that benefit our creative industries to the extent that they now require . 
it promotes mobility , and it opens the doors of culture to the socially disadvantaged and excluded . 
my only regret is that in promoting this programme we do not have sufficient money to match our aspirations and ensure our ability to deliver . 
Madam President , ladies and gentlemen , we have now come to the end of a long road . 
following the conciliation stage , our institutions can now formally adopt the new ' Culture 2000 ' framework programme . 
we shall thus , in the course of the next five years , have a tool perfectly suited to developing clear , well @-@ structured and , I am sure , successful measures in order to promote the cultural sector . 
it is with great satisfaction that I today welcome this ' happy ending ' in this House , and I thank you for it . 
I wish to thank everyone in this Parliament who worked to achieve this successful outcome to the conciliation process . 
I should like to express especial thanks to the Committee on Culture , Youth , Education , the Media and Sport , particularly to its rapporteur , Mr Graça Moura , its chairman , Mr Gargani , the European Parliament delegation and the leaders of the political groups , the Conciliation Committee and its chairman , Mr Imbeni . 
they all made a vital constructive and balanced contribution . 
throughout the negotiations , they were of great help and it must be said that the difficult and occasionally tiresome negotiations were nonetheless completed in record time . 
we now have a framework programme , the first of its type for the cultural sector , and this programme makes it possible for us to plan our action from a new perspective and to work to promote culture in a more comprehensive , but also more thorough and detailed manner . 
I would like to express my delight , with you , at this pleasing outcome . in spite of a budget situation which does not match up to our ambitions , these results will now enable us to approach the future positively and I would like to pick up on what Mr Gargani has just said , that the Commission made a statement regarding a mid @-@ term assessment . 
it stated that on the occasion of the report it must draw up in accordance with Article 7 of the European Parliament and Council decision , it would carry out an assessment of the results of the programme , and this assessment will also cover the financial resources in the context of the Community financial perspectives . 
if need be , the report shall contain a proposal to amend the decision , and this should be achieved by 30 June 2002 . 
ladies and gentlemen , this is a formal commitment , not just words on paper . 
all this must lead us to intensify our action in favour of developing a common cultural area , within which our cultures can flourish further in all their unique features , in all their diversity , but may also be mutually enriched and the other citizens of Europe may participate fully in them . 
it is thanks , too , to Parliament ' s action , preferring a number of small @-@ scale measures to be carried out close to the citizens ' cultural roots rather than vast measures on a spectacular scale . 
this is going to lead us to make ' Culture 2000 ' the programme of the citizen . 
the increased participation of our citizens is something I hope and pray for . I would like this participation to be as extensive and productive as possible and I undertake to work to ensure that in the course of the five years covered by the programme it becomes a tangible reality . 
I know that you , as Members of Parliament , in your own regions and countries , are all going to work together with the programme participants so that all these small flowers , as one Member of Parliament said , go to make a vast multicoloured carpet . 
I should like this programme to become a practical reality and for culture to be not only a factor of enrichment for our citizens , both in personal as well as in social and economic terms , but a right which it is our job to assert , and also the hallmark of rediscovered interaction within the Union . 
this is what our European ' Culture 2000 ' programme offers . 
it does not compete with the cultural policies implemented in the various Member States . 
such policies are necessary , and I would like to see them developed further . 
it simply adds to them , complements them , building a bridge between the various cultures of our various countries . 
I feel therefore that extending and enriching European citizens ' participation in culture is a crucial task , one which justifies the efforts we make to achieve it , and this is the yardstick against which we must measure the success of our programme and of our Union . 
a number of Members of Parliament have quite rightly raised this point . if the Union is purely an economic union , then it is a stillborn project . 
however , if it is a union of culture , civilisation and participation , then it becomes a living thing . 
this is the foundation , ladies and gentlemen , which I intend to develop , and I shall take the following five areas into special consideration : firstly , providing creative people with opportunities of an innovative nature to allow their talent to find the support it deserves in our programme . 
secondly , encouraging exchanges , mobility and training in the cultural sector . 
thirdly , promoting cooperation between cultural operators . 
fourthly , increasing audiences for culture , with particular emphasis on attracting young people to culture and , fifthly , protecting the common cultural heritage on the European scale as well as the history of the peoples of Europe , and making them better known . 
the new programme will , I am sure , in terms of its structure and organisation based on transparency , efficiency and balance , prove to be an instrument as successful as it is essential to our measures . 
Madam President , I reiterate my thanks to Parliament for its support and for , once again , having shown the importance it attaches to culture in the context of the Union . 
I am certain that it will not be disappointed , having given us its support , and I personally undertake to keep Parliament informed , as things progress , of the various phases of the implementation of our measures and the measures of our citizens , which I hope will be great measures for the future of the Union . 
thank you , Commissioner . 
I think we can also thank the rapporteur once again . 
the debate is closed . 
the vote will take place at 11 a.m. tomorrow . 
( the sitting was closed at 9.55 p.m. ) 
end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles 
Mr President , nine million cars are shredded and scrapped every year in Europe . 
even though they can no longer be driven , these nine million cars may still be traded and moved across borders ; and not just intra @-@ Community borders , but also those outside the Union . 
it is therefore only right that the European Union should draw up Community rules on how these nine million vehicles every year are to be recycled and processed . 
we believe that the directive has a few weaknesses that we in the House should work on to produce a directive which is genuinely ground @-@ breaking . 
we therefore have a number of amendments . 
I personally believe that the scope of the directive goes beyond its objective . 
I do not think it is necessary for classic cars to be part of the directive . 
nor do I think that motorcycles should be included , as the distinctive culture of recycling within the motorcycle industry obviates the need for a European directive in this area . 
I am not looking for such rigidly high recycling quotas when it comes to special @-@ purpose vehicles either . 
I want special @-@ purpose vehicles such as ambulances to have high recovery quotas . 
this is my main concern in this matter . 
in my opinion , the directive solidly regulates the matter of accountability for how a car is disposed of in Europe . 
this can be left as the Commission has proposed with the Member States ensuring the appropriate collection points for draining cars . this will involve , for example , disposing of more than 32 million lots of used oil , removing break fluid , etc . 
an important part of this directive is the issue of what to do with used parts . what should we do with the shredded products ? 
we should not overlook the fact that , although quotas are an important point in recycling and recovery , they are by no means the only point . 
do not forget that , in the case of cars , 80 % of environmental impact comes through driving , 1 % through recovery and 19 % through construction . 
quotas are not , therefore , the only parameter in the matter of environmental compatibility , just one of many . 
of course we need to aim high , but quotas must not become an end in themselves . 
we must understand that the bigger picture is important when it comes to the environmental impact of cars . 
I am far keener to see us move away from today 's car , weighing 1,400 kg and driving an average of 200,000 km , to a future car capable of driving the same distance but weighing just 1,000 kg . 
this would at least mean 400 kg times 200,000 km less transportation . 
this would represent real environmental progress because it would lead to a large reduction in CO2 which , if I have rightly understood the Kyoto Protocol , is the important factor . 
we therefore consider that , in future , vehicles which clearly and effectively use lightweight construction methods will produce less CO2 and should receive preferential treatment in their combustion quotas . 
it should not be for each Member State , but for you and your staff , Commissioner , to decide whether these lightweight construction vehicles ( and there is also talk of 3 @-@ litre vehicles ) should receive preferential treatment . 
we think they should . 
may I say something about costs . 
some say that all the costs should be borne by the manufacturers ; that this is only right and in the very best interests of the consumer . 
however , this can be seriously questioned as the manufacturers will pass on all the costs to consumers and acquire for themselves a state @-@ sanctioned monopoly on recycling . 
I can only warn you against consenting to this . 
there are amendments which propose splitting the costs fifty @-@ fifty between the manufacturer and the buyer of a new car . 
the money from this pool , system , or however you want to picture it , would mean that from 2006 all vehicles in circulation could be taken in without cost to the last holder . 
this too is a particular desire of my group . 
our proposal to split the costs has a crucial advantage , namely that we won 't be an immediate candidate for the Court of Justice when the directive is adopted . 
the car industry is concerned about and half expecting repercussions , which is a serious problem which we must address accordingly . 
this is why I propose splitting the costs between the first holder and the manufacturer . 
as for a ban on certain materials : of course we need one ! 
a car has dangerous components which we must ban long @-@ term . 
this means that we need a pressure instrument . 
the Commission has put forward various proposals which are too stringent and we have come up with some alternatives . 
there are a number of sound amendments . 
this Parliament has been given more authority , so let us use it ! 
let us have the courage to put together a ground @-@ breaking directive . 
a directive which we put together just for the sake of it would not be worthy of this House . 
I ask for your support . 
Mr President , I almost feel like saying , " Phew " , now that we have at last come to the second reading on this directive which has given us so much work , and which has clearly also given a great deal of work to the rapporteur , Mr Florenz . 
I do not consider this directive to be at all satisfactory since it does not answer the real question over what is going to be done with vehicles which have already been abandoned and which , today , can only be removed at local authority expense , i.e. the taxpayers ' expense . 
the principle of ' polluter pays ' is not being applied . 
vehicles already abandoned have also been abandoned by Community legislation , in that they are not taken into consideration either in the texts on emissions or in this text on end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles . 
the only merit of this directive is that it looks to the future . 
it has not , however , been possible to solve the problem of vehicles currently being used but which are already old and which cost far more to recycle . 
on the other hand , we can be fairly confident for the future because we know the efforts that car manufacturers are prepared to make in order to find ( a ) materials that are easier to recycle and ( b ) to set up recycling industries . 
I should also like to stress the need to maintain a flexible approach to recycling , reuse and incineration , as far as the new particularly light materials are concerned which make it possible to reduce vehicle consumption and therefore emissions . 
this is a problem of compatibility between our directives on end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles and the former directives , including the one on auto @-@ oil , which we voted on a few years ago . 
we must therefore congratulate the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Protection , on having the wisdom , in order to make things perfectly clear , to reintroduce the clause making an exception of the vintage cars which are part of our industrial and cultural heritage . 
in conclusion , let me say that this directive is not ambitious enough to solve the problems of present car numbers and it is rather hypocritical with regard to the fate reserved for the wrecks which still clutter our forests , lakes and gardens . 
once again , the principle of ' polluter pays ' is not being applied . the taxpayer is still footing the bill . 
Mr President , Commissioner , reading the leaflets which have been distributed in recent weeks , one would think that we were talking about the ultimate environmental catastrophe or the death of the car industry in Europe . 
neither is correct . 
we simply must realise that the directive on the table is a sound directive . 
it means ecological progress for Europe , and we can be proud of ourselves if we succeed in enacting it and setting it in motion . 
all the same , there is one point on which we are in conflict . 
in the grand scheme of the directive , it is perhaps a minor point , but nevertheless a disputed one . 
it concerns the issue of recycling costs . 
here we find ourselves fundamentally at odds with last year 's debate in the Council when freedom from costs for the last owner and the issue of financing were lumped together and a question mark placed over whether the last owner should really be free from costs . 
last February in this House we unambiguously decided ( and we Social Democrats are sticking to this ) that the matter of freedom from costs for the last owner is not open to question ! 
so who will pay for the vehicles which are to be disposed of ? 
for us this is straightforward : in the case of new vehicles it should be the manufacturer since this will also compel manufacturers to design and build recyclable cars . 
and what about vehicles which are already on the road ? 
let us look at an example . Rover in Great Britain , if they were responsible for all end @-@ of @-@ life cars , would actually be responsible for 5.8 million cars within the European Union and would immediately have to set aside EUR 250 million against recycling costs , whereas a manufacturer from Korea building similar cars would only have to shell out peanuts , as a representative of Deutsche Bank put it . 
such distortions in competition are not about environmental protection ; they simply affect investment potential and the jobs of those building cars in Europe . 
consequently , for end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles we propose setting up a fund to cover the costs of recycling end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles in order to safeguard the principle of freedom from costs . 
I can understand it when colleagues from countries which do not build cars advocate that manufacturers should pay the full whack and that they are not interested in the problem of distortions in competition when it comes to setting aside funds . 
however , I would ask these colleagues to show solidarity with the more than 2 million people who make a living from building cars in Europe , so that these jobs can be secured in the future . 
I am in favour of stringent environmental requirements , as you know from the auto @-@ oil programme and the debate on exhaust emissions , but I believe that they should be the same for everyone ! 
Mr President , Commissioner , I think we need this directive . 
firstly , because it clearly stipulates the environmental objectives . 
secondly , because it can promote recycling , which is important . 
thirdly , because it sets out a clear procedure to combat pollution caused by heavy metals . 
this is also an important point . 
the directive affords a European framework , also to Member States who already have systems in place and who wish to continue to use these . 
so , first of all , we need to keep the recycling percentages at their present level . this will , of course , provide the necessary incentive for technological innovation and for identifying ways of dealing with materials that we do not as yet know how to dispose of . 
secondly , we need to retain the details as they are included in the common position . 
as from 2006 , therefore , all vehicles should be handed in at no cost to their last owners . 
needless to say , this is most definitely an essential point which should not be changed in any way . 
is this too much of a burden ? 
there is , however , one thing we should not overlook . 
the directive applies to complete cars , that is to say cars with none of the essential components missing . according to the experts , few of these complete cars are of no value . 
after all , recycling and the re @-@ use of components form part of a sector which is not necessarily loss @-@ making . quite the reverse , in fact . 
at present , there is a whole raft of companies which make a living out of them , and a decent one at that . this directive encourages the whole of this sector . 
it is a sector which comprises small and medium @-@ sized businesses . 
since , in this case , transport costs are high , a system will have to be introduced which will need to be very much decentralised , because transporting an end @-@ of @-@ life vehicle over a distance of more than 100 km is not a profitable activity . 
I think it is a good thing that this directive does not need to apply to historic vehicles , and I think we ought to add this provision to it . 
I think , therefore , that vintage cars ought to be exempt . 
also , it is a good thing that we should clearly lay the burden of responsibility with the manufacturer . 
that is a basic principle which we must uphold . 
as manufacturers are responsible for the design , they can give a great deal of consideration to the environment at the conception phase . 
we must also insist that the cost is borne wholly or largely by the manufacturer , as stipulated in the common position . 
I find this a well @-@ balanced formula which does not preclude a number of other things . 
I think we need to retain it . 
this is why our group will remain as close to the common position as possible and will not alter its essence . 
after all , we are all aware how difficult it was within the Council to bring this common position about , and that it was a very difficult balancing act to reach this common position . 
in my opinion , we should not jeopardise that common position , because it is a directive which we desperately need for environmental reasons . 
I would ask you to support this common position . 
our group will , at any rate , do this as far as possible - for environmental reasons and because we have this directive which is well @-@ balanced and encompasses a whole range of issues and difficulties including , for example , the way in which the costs are to be distributed . 
Mr President , we need to take an important decision today . 
does this European Parliament support the ecological principle of manufacturer ' s liability , that is to say that cars , once they have reached the end of their lives , are the responsibility of the car manufacturer ? 
no , according to the Christian Democrats in Amendment No. 38 : car manufacturers and car drivers should split the cost 50 / 50 . 
it is evident from the packaging directive in which this 50 / 50 compromise is included that this does not work . 
packaging still accounts for a mountain of rubbish in Europe and is a burden upon the environment . 
some of the socialists under the direction of Mr Bernd Lange say : yes , we approve of this principle but we need not implement it until 2010 or 2012 according to Amendment No 45 . 
the common position stipulates 2006 . 
according to the group of the Greens , this gives the car industry ample time to make the necessary preparations . 
I would therefore urge my colleagues not to support Amendment No 38 of the Christian Democrats and Amendment No 45 of some of the socialists . 
if car manufacturers need to bear the cost of recycling their cars , they will design these cars in such a way that they can be re @-@ used more easily and more cheaply . 
the problem of plastic and PVC will then no longer exist in cars and these products will be replaced by plant @-@ based bioplastic . 
this is ultimately cheaper , also for the consumer . 
for twenty years , the majority within Parliament has attempted to make European environmental policy greener . 
today , this green position is being threatened under pressure from , in particular , the German and French car industries . 
that is why I urge you to vote against Amendments Nos 38 and 45 . 
we , the Green Group , by and large support the common position . 
Mr President , the waste from end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles is one of our really major environmental problems in terms both of the quantity of waste and of emissions of environmentally hazardous substances . 
we in the Confederal Group of the European United Left / Nordic Green Left therefore want as comprehensive and consistent a set of regulations as is humanly possible in this area . 
with this directive , we have the chance to take a big step forward , but this presupposes that the Council ' s position is not torn to shreds and weakened in Parliament ' s reading of it . 
if they were adopted , many of the amendments which have been tabled would considerably weaken the directive . 
this applies , above all , to amendments from the Group of the European People ' s Party but also , unfortunately , to some of the amendments from Mr Lange , as I see it . 
it is easy to see that the car industry in certain countries , for example in Germany , went in for some pretty tough lobbying before the present directive was adopted . 
for ourselves , it is crucial that the following principles should apply . 
the polluter should pay . 
this means that it is the manufacturer which should take full responsibility , financial as well as otherwise , for recycling vehicles . 
there must be rules governing existing vehicles too . 
where this aspect is concerned , we cannot accept any weakening of the Council ' s position regarding the date from which the regulations are to come into force . 
there should be no falling @-@ off in the percentages concerned or in the requirements for recycling vehicles from particular years , and it is important to limit the use of dangerous substances such as lead . 
we shall vote against any amendments which run counter to these considerations . 
if those amendments were adopted which would considerably weaken the directive , this would be very detrimental , not only from an environmental point of view but also for the European Parliament ' s credibility on environmental issues . 
reference was made earlier on in the debate to the fact that some thought should be given to the millions of people who work in the car industry in various countries and to those countries which have large car industries , for example my own country , Sweden . 
I was myself a car worker before I was elected . 
I believe I am one of the few members of this Parliament to have stood beside a production line and assembled cars . 
I think that very tough demands should be made of the car industry . 
these would , of course , be to the advantage of modern , progressive car manufacturers who think in environmentally friendly terms . 
it is precisely this type of car industry which we should be encouraging in the European Union . 
Mr President , I am very pleased that environmental protection is now a priority for this Parliament , as indeed it is for the citizens of Europe . 
there is no doubt that abandoned cars represent a serious threat to the visual and physical environment . 
our citizens expect us in this regard to protect their interests . 
each year , there are between 8 and 9 million vehicles scrapped within the European Union . 
this in itself generates a large amount of waste . 
car manufacturers , the suppliers of materials and equipment manufacturers must make an effort to limit the use of hazardous substances and therefore must ensure at the design stage that recycled materials can be used in the manufacture of cars . 
we know that in the Netherlands there are authorised treatment centres in place to collect end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles and this process should be extended across the length and breadth of the European Union . 
from an Irish perspective , I know that the Irish Department of the Environment is already having consultations with motor industry representatives to ensure that appropriate collection centres are put in place in Ireland in the near future to deal with end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles . 
I see no reason why licensing arrangements cannot be organised across Europe for collection centres to scrap the 8 to 9 million vehicles which are disposed of within the European Union on an annual basis . 
car manufacturers will have to provide information on the rate of re @-@ use , recycling and recovery of used cars which will be achieved in the coming years . 
in accordance with new provisions included in the Amsterdam Treaty all the 370 million consumers within the European Union have a right to consumer @-@ related information . 
I believe EU consumers will support those car manufacturers that incorporate the most environmentally @-@ friendly practices in the coming year . 
my final point is that the regulations and the legislation must take into account the special position of the vintage car sector throughout the European Community because of its role in relation to the social sector and its environmental and economic considerations . 
Mr President , the directive on end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles is certainly a milestone in the improvement of the environment in Europe . 
I also think that a great effort has been made to arrive at intelligent recycling of materials , a reduction of polluting waste and the promotion of technological innovation . 
in this regard , we are certainly on the right track , but as some Members have already stressed , the real issue here is the possibility that manufacturers ' responsibility will become a shared responsibility . 
I would like to say that in Italy , considerable headway has been made in this sector ; we are perhaps the first in Europe to have regulations encouraging us to take end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles off the market , but in our country the average age of cars on the road is rather high , and we therefore have serious concerns over the problems that this directive could entail for the market . 
we need to conduct a serious analysis of the matter . 
in Italy , we have begun to withdraw and recycle around 80 % of old cars , but there is a market problem which could trigger a crisis - in terms of unemployment given that in Italy industry often resorts to lay @-@ offs and redundancies - and cause problems for workers in different parts of Italy . 
we must therefore try to reconcile the two requirements - Parliament is sometimes a little extremist , adopting positions that are either extremely pro @-@ green or extremely anti @-@ green - and , all things considered , find a way to combine the effort made by Mr Florenz and that of other Members , who are trying to reconcile the two positions as best as possible . 
these worthwhile amendments are the outcome of this ; I think that we will be able to arrive at a solution to the problem , that is , to reconcile environmental requirements with market and labour requirements . 
Mr President , this directive deals with the comparatively small but growing problem of abandoned cars and the question of a more structured disposal of all cars at the end of their life . 
to that extent , it might be thought desirable , even if it is not a matter of urgent necessity . 
the key questions now are who pays the EUR 262 per car for the 9 million cars that are disposed of each year ? 
who pays for the collection , the dismantling , the disposal and so on ? 
and should the directive be retrospective to cover every car that has ever been made ? 
the proposal from the Council , the common position , is that manufacturers should pay the lot . 
that would mean billions of pounds or euros for each of the major companies in each of the countries of the European Union . 
that cost would inevitably be passed on to the price and hence to the buyers of new cars . 
because European car manufactures have been operating here for many , many more decades than companies from Japan , Korea and elsewhere , that would be a much greater burden on the older European companies and a competitive gift to their competitors from elsewhere . 
I commend Mr Florenz , Mr Lange and others who have sought from both sides of the party divide a compromise based on shared costs . 
I also commend to you the amendment standing in my name and colleagues from Germany , Italy , Ireland , Spain , Sweden and Britain , to remove the retrospective nature of this measure . 
retrospective law is bad law , it is unfair law and often it is unworkable law . 
most democratic parliaments in the free world reject it on principle unless there is overwhelming public interest , which clearly there is not in this case . 
that is why I have called for a roll @-@ call vote on this . 
we can see who is prepared to vote for a retrospection which is of doubtful legality , which would be a costly burden to every future car buyer and a devastating blow for the European car industry . 
Mr President , once again I would like to briefly outline the economic issues involved in this directive , and reaffirm my support for the amendments tabled by my colleague , Bernd Lange . 
these amendments actually have the advantage - and I should like to stress this - of reconciling environmental constraints and economic imperatives . 
the Council ' s common position was to say that car manufacturers should bear all , or a significant part , of the costs of recovery and recycling . 
but , as Mr Lange so rightly said , this solution is totally unfair to European car manufacturers . 
coming from a country which does have a car manufacturing industry , I can tell you that it is not possible , retroactively , to impose on them the total financial costs for all vehicles of their makes currently on the road , i.e. effectively making them bear the costs arising from 80 % of the total number of cars in Europe . 
this solution is unacceptable because these car manufacturers have not had the opportunity to build the environmental demands we are making of them today into their manufacturing procedures and their manufacturing costs . 
the common position puts European car manufacturers in a disadvantageous position in relation to manufacturers which have just come to the European market . 
of course , we are not here to defend a particular national interest or a particular industrial lobby . we are here to build a Europe that is competitive on the world market and to safeguard jobs in economic sectors where we are actually competitive . 
Mr President , Commissioner , the proposed directive on end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles before us today aims firstly to guarantee a high level of environmental protection in the Union , but also to safeguard the proper operation of the internal market in this sector . 
let me briefly say that historic and vintage vehicles must , of course , be exempt from the scope of this directive . cars are also part of our cultural heritage . 
I think we would all agree on that . 
having said that , one of the stumbling blocks concerns Article 12 , i.e. the date on which the directive will come into force . 
Parliament ' s proposed solution of 18 months following the directive ' s entry into force , for new vehicles , is not terribly realistic . 
the European car population amounts to several tens of millions of cars which will have to be recovered even though they were not designed for recycling . 
the common position was more feasible since it envisaged 2006 for vehicles already on the road . 
this would , furthermore , make it possible to allow firms time to make funds available to meet these additional expenses . 
like my group , I shall therefore support this aspect the common position which , I feel , offers a balanced compromise between constraints upon firms and essential advances in environmental protection . 
Mr President , the European Parliament is today facing an important decision . 
will we give our backing to forward @-@ looking environmental and consumer protection or , as the amendments of Florenz , Lange and others cause me to fear , will we allow ourselves to become a servant of the German car industry ? 
the credibility of Parliament as a champion of environmental protection is at stake . 
it would be shameful to say the least if the European Parliament were to draw back from the professions the governments of the 14 Member States and the European Commission have been making concerning manufacturer responsibility and environmental protection ! 
the intention of Florenz and Lange in their amendments is obvious : to sabotage the directive ! 
the proposed shared responsibility would undermine the polluter pays principle and detract from product innovation . 
in setting up numerous hurdles their sole aim is to hamper an efficient ecological material flow policy and by going down the road of type approvals they seek to delay the implementation of the directives by 12 years or more . 
this is totally unacceptable . I therefore appeal to the German delegates in particular to prevent major political damage occurring today ! 
the red @-@ green federal government has not exactly covered itself with glory in the debate on the End @-@ of @-@ life Vehicles Directive . 
do not continue in this vein ! 
the whinging about competitive disadvantages is laughable if it only concerns competitive disadvantages sustained by the German car industry . 
start representing your people and not just your car manufacturers ! 
vote in favour of environmental and consumer protection and for innovation in the car and recycling industry ! 
Mr President , this directive has been under discussion since 1997 . 
it is high time that we reached an agreement . 
since I more or less share the views of my colleague , Mr Sjöstedt and the representative of the Greens , Mr de Roo , I am not going to use the two minutes allotted to me , and I will highlight just two issues . 
firstly , and this is perhaps the basic point of the proposal , the idea , which goes hand in hand with recycling and the use of waste , that we should use materials which will subsequently cause less pollution . 
another point is that waste should not be incinerated or crushed , not only in the case of lead , cadmium and mercury , but also in the case of waste which contains PVC . 
Parliament is currently discussing this issue in another context . 
the other question is who should bear the cost . 
I agree with previous speakers who have said that the polluter should pay , and this proposal expresses that idea very well . 
producers must pay - although we all know that the consumer will ultimately suffer the consequences of this - and they must take responsibility for the costs before 2006 , as some of the amendments propose . 
we are more in agreement with the amendment proposed at first reading . 
it is also important to set percentages and a date for vehicles to be composed of recyclable materials . 
I believe that this proposal relies on very long deadlines . 
lastly , Mr President , I believe we should favour the creation of small and medium @-@ sized businesses which , if subject to rigorous approval and duly authorised , can promote the creation of jobs in this very important area , preventing the emergence of monopolies by large companies . 
Mr President , today the European Parliament must face up to real responsibilities . 
we have to work out what we are going to do with the millions of vehicles we abandon each year . 
in some of our Member States , voluntary environmental agreements have already been signed to ensure that our ditches , canals and fields are not filled with these ugly and dangerous wrecks , inhabited occasionally by an alarmed farmyard chicken . 
I come , of course , from a country that is proud of its car industry and of its commercial success both in Europe and in third countries . 
I can gauge its importance for my country ' s international reputation . 
I know of the proactive attitude of the European car manufacturing industry which has set up an extensive research programme to outline a national information system for dismantling end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles . 
I am aware of the difficulties the Council experienced in finding a compromise . 
that is why , today , we must be understanding alchemists , concerned for our environment . 
this will either be the century of waste management or it will not . 
as far as I am concerned , at least , the principle of ' polluter pays ' must be applied . 
the car industry , increasingly more respectful of the environment , has , I am sure , anticipated this kind of increasing awareness . indeed it is accepting its responsibilities . 
it is the Member States , however , who will have to implement this directive , and let us beware of going into too much detail because the industrial traditions , the demolition and crushing sectors vary according to whether you are in Italy or in Finland . 
I am opposed to making the car owners liable . 
the men and women on the move throughout Europe pay for their car and their catalytic converter , pay their national taxes and the tax on fuel and are therefore already paying a high price for their magnificent machine and their freedom of movement . 
it would certainly be unwise for my fellow Members in the major groups of the federalist tendency to seek to make the European Parliament unpopular in this way by creating a liability shared between the owner and the manufacturer . 
how , furthermore , can a fund be created which will pay for vehicle recycling and manage operations within Europe . 
who is to pay for recycling the car I bought in France if I register it in Belgium ? 
which national fund will pay for my end @-@ of @-@ life vehicle ? 
let us beware , too , of worrying the world of business with the legal uncertainty of an unacceptable retroactive application . 
it is not our intention to start a punitive legislative campaign here today , but to continue on our present course , advocating sustainable development . 
Mr President , most of the time , the European Parliament , spearheaded by environment committees , does its very best to make a critical assessment of the proposals submitted by the European Commission or the Council , so as to improve on them from an environmental point of view . 
now , a sound common position submitted by the Council is in danger of being changed for the worse from an environmental point of view here in Parliament . 
every year , we discard a huge amount of cars which contain many dangerous substances . 
this is why it is important to prevent waste materials . 
we should also aim for minimum quantities of heavy metals , as well as of other dangerous substances and materials . 
in addition , car manufacturers need to produce and build these cars in such a way as to facilitate simple dismantling and re @-@ use . 
what is left of the stripped vehicle also requires to be processed adequately . 
I therefore welcome with open arms the percentage levels for re @-@ use and recycling which have been proposed by the Council . 
these days , the complete dismantling of end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles is economically viable . 
this means that we move away from shredding . 
the prescribed objectives are most certainly viable and , in the Netherlands , a value of 86 % recycling has now already been achieved . 
the best way of achieving proper collection is to ensure that the last holder and / or owner can deliver the car to an authorised treatment facility without any cost . 
the processing cost can then be incorporated in the price of new cars . 
the proposals made by a few MEPs impact greatly on this system . 
the so @-@ called shared liability is very cumbersome and does not stimulate innovation . 
if the system of delivering cars to treatment facilities without any cost is applied , it will also transpire that the cost of processing will come down considerably . 
finally , this directive should enter into force at the earliest opportunity . 
a laborious conciliation procedure would entail an unnecessary delay , at the expense of the environment . 
why cannot we just be satisfied with the common position currently tabled ? 
if we are , then all that remains for us to do is to congratulate the Council on the result achieved . 
Mr President , I hold Mr Florenz in high esteem . 
he has delivered excellent work under pressure both from his colleagues and from the car industry . 
add to this the fact that he had to do this from his green approach and , against that background , find a compromise . that was not easy . 
overall , I am not dissatisfied with the present common position and certainly not with the philosophy underlying that common position . I would like to comment on two things . 
these should indeed be excluded from the directive . secondly , the controversial question as to who bears the responsibility for taking back cars . 
I do not wish to alter the text of the common position in any way . 
the manufacturer is and should be liable and the last holder and / or owner must be able to hand back the car without any cost . 
in my opinion , there is too much initial hesitation . 
the car lobby has led too many people up the garden path . 
I would also like to mention that experience has nonetheless taught us that the processing cost is in fact passed on . 
these costs are not very high . 
in the Member State where I come from , you are talking about 150 Guilders per car . 
if you charge this from day one , you can process the old cars straight away . 
a very large industry might then emerge which would ensure that scrapyards , which used to be a common feature in our Member States , would then disappear . 
I do not wish to make any changes to this particular aspect of the compromise . 
I think it would be a good thing if we were to approve the present legislation together as soon as possible . 
this is positive because , in that way , the nine million cars which are introduced each year onto European roads will actually be processed appropriately , and this will benefit us all . 
Mr President , the present directive is important in so far as it helps prevent our being faced with hazardous waste from end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles and in so far as it promotes the re @-@ use and recycling of materials from scrapped cars . 
I therefore think it is crucial for the environment that the ban on using poisonous heavy metals should be fully implemented and that we should not reduce manufacturers ' liability . 
if we do reduce it , we remove from manufacturers the incentive to design and produce cars which give rise to less waste . 
if these amendments are adopted , I think that we shall cause Parliament seriously to lose credibility on environmental issues . 
so far , we here in Parliament have been positive catalysts for environmental protection but now , if the amendments proposed by Mr Florenz and Mr Lange are adopted , we are to become a negative factor for the environment in Europe . 
what is more , if we reduce manufacturers ' liability on this issue , this will also have serious consequences for subsequent matters in other areas , for example the forthcoming directive on scrap from computers and other electronic equipment . 
I would therefore recommend to Members of Parliament that we cut across party lines and vote against all the amendments to the common position which would weaken environmental standards and reduce manufacturers ' liability . 
we shall then be able to achieve an environmentally respectable result . 
Mr President , this excellent directive will end the dumping of old cars , encourage recycling , and above all encourage manufacturers to design cars which can easily be recycled . 
now who should pay the costs ? 
whatever system is adopted , ultimately the cost will be passed on to the consumer . 
the best way of achieving our environmental objectives is to make the manufacturers our instrument both for collecting the money and for disposing and recycling of the cars . 
the manufacturers have tricked Mr Florenz and Mr Lange into tabling amendments here which seriously weaken these proposals . 
do not be fooled by the car manufacturers ! 
if you want the full benefits of this directive use your vote to throw out these amendments . 
Mr President , Commissioner , this debate is not a technical debate , contrary to what we may think . it has become eminently political . 
yesterday we honoured our institution with a political debate . 
today , if 314 Members of Parliament yield to the strength of the lobbying of some car manufacturers , we should be doing ourselves dishonour . 
we cannot accept this . 
it would be a precedent which would open the door to all sorts of pressure in many other areas . 
it would also be the first time that the European Parliament would be weakening a Council position , whereas usually we are complaining that their position is not strong enough . 
the free recovery system , for example , for old vehicles and raising the percentage to be recycled will increase recycling activities and the number of jobs this generates accordingly . 
thus , for the consumer , for the environment and for the new jobs to be created in recycling , the Council ' s common position definitely must not be amended . it is , as it stands , perfectly acceptable . 
Mr President , like so many others here today , I believe this is a good measure . 
this is a useful measure and it is one which we all need . 
most of the technical issues have been resolved . 
there are some details to be finalised but most of the technical issues have been resolved . 
we have arrived at the final question . 
in the first reading debate it was only the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee which asked this question and it was only myself as the draftsman of the opinion of that committee who posed that question in Parliament . 
that is quite simply : who pays ? 
the Council common position reached a reasonable compromise in that the manufacturers should pay a significant part of the cost , not all of it as Mr Bowis has mistakenly said . 
in fact perhaps as little , the lawyers tell us , as 20 % or one @-@ fifth of the cost . 
that is not unreasonable . 
if you look at the UK consumer for example , who buys a Rover , as Mr Lange has indicated or for that matter any other make of car in the UK and who has for years been paying excessive prices for those cars , over and above comparable prices in other parts of Europe , why should they pay ? 
they have paid already . 
why should the very same people as taxpayers or as future car buyers , pay again to dispose of the vehicle that the manufacturer has made the profit from ? 
I cannot accept that . 
there are amendments here today that are proposing that should be the case . 
I cannot accept it and I will not vote for it . 
the responsibility for these cars lies with the manufacturer . 
it is the manufacturer who has to provide the infrastructure and provide a reasonable part of the cost of disposal . 
the common position does not preclude the possibility of contributions being made by government . 
the common position is a reasonable compromise . 
some of the amendments today are totally unreasonable in that they take away completely the responsibility from the car manufacturer of paying a little if any of the cost of disposal of cars on the road . 
I cannot accept that and on behalf of the taxpayers and the consumers of Europe I am voting against those amendments . 
Mr President , there is agreement that we must give some thought as to how we in Europe will properly deal with end @-@ of @-@ life cars , although in this instance the Council has not provided a model for a suitable European environment policy . 
it is disgraceful the way in which the German Presidency handled this matter . 
firstly , Herr Trittin , the Environment Minister , was not in tune with his colleagues in the Cabinet , then Chancellor Schröder blundered in like a bull in a china shop , having no expert knowledge of this process . 
mind you , even the Resolution of the Finnish Council Presidency in June was not the best result that could have been done achieved . 
there are certain weaknesses , the greatest of which , in my opinion , is that not enough consideration is being given to the situation of small businesses ; after all , the car industry is more than just large companies . 
it is in the area of supply that small business plays an important role and we must not fail to also take account of the interests of those employed in small and medium @-@ sized enterprises . 
for there are considerably more than two million people employed in this sector . 
the plight of small businesses is also addressed by numerous amendments from the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy and also the amendments in question from our group to Article 5 concerning costs . 
the common position is also no great shakes from an environmental viewpoint . 
consequently , we must support an amendment which at least permits exceptions in the case of particularly economical cars . 
the objections of the industry in this matter are certainly not without foundation . 
however , the arguments of the plastics and car industries would be more persuasive if a commitment were to be given to reducing CO2 levels in Europe in other sectors besides these . 
Mr President , we are indeed now in a very rare situation : those who wish to uphold environmental values will take the side of the Council in their common position . 
in contrast to what the previous speaker said , I can say I am really proud that a common position was achieved during the Finnish Presidency to uphold environmental values . 
if we slide away from the common position and try to divide the recycling costs , we will be creating a loophole : we will not have created a rational , clear system in which the division of responsibilities is in order . 
that is why , in my opinion , the manufacturer must take the greatest share of the responsibility . 
only then will we find an adequate solution to the problem , taking into consideration the fact too that the manufacturer should be encouraged to make vehicles whose parts can be recycled at the smallest possible cost in the future . 
Mr President , there are two issues of principle in the Council ' s draft directive . 
the first concerns the manufacturer ' s unrestricted liability to take back end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles . 
there is the risk of creating a monopoly within the car dismantling trade . this particularly applies in areas within the EU where distances are great and where a lot of small companies are involved in dismantling vehicles . 
I believe that , quite apart from the nature of the issue concerned , the EU ' s directives should not treat small companies within the Union unfairly . 
unrestricted liability on the part of manufacturers would also be in danger of creating a situation in which the market for used car parts disappears , for manufacturers would have a greater responsibility to sell new parts . 
yet the trade in used car parts is important , especially for those who collect and renovate older vehicles . 
the principle of unrestricted liability on the part of manufacturers is also dubious in terms of the principles governing the market economy . 
it should be possible for changes to be made to companies and for the latter to be sold and wound up . 
they should be able to establish themselves in new markets , but also to leave old markets . 
to bind manufacturers by means of a liability which can extend very far back in time ill accords with a flexible market economy designed to promote development . 
the second principle in the Council ' s common position is the retroactive element in the draft directive . 
it conflicts with established economic and legal principles retroactively to impose upon a manufacturer financial liability for its product . 
to do so also changes the owner ' s liability retroactively . 
over the years , a consumer may have altered the product in a number of ways . 
every country within the EU now has rules governing the scrapping of cars . 
some may be better than others , and some worse . 
in anticipation of this EU directive ' s being implemented , EU countries ought however to be individually liable for scrapping vehicles in the best way possible so that the retroactive element in the EU legislation is not applied . 
this does not conflict with a financing model involving the building up of funds . 
Mr President , everyone agrees with the obvious environmental and industrial importance of the instrument in question . 
the common position offers an acceptable compromise but its rather delicate and precarious nature somewhat restricts the opportunities for improvement , and puts the whole directive at risk . 
I therefore maintain that Parliament cannot force the issue and it would be paradoxical for it to do so in the context of redefining the environmental scope of the instrument . 
I would remind you that car manufacturers have admitted that they can live with the directive ; the costs are not excessive : recycling a car costs less than 1 % of the price of a new car . 
Mr President , this is an extremely bad directive . 
first of all , as my colleague Mr Bowis has pointed out , it is retrospective and that is wrong in principle . 
secondly , it dumps huge costs on the European motor industry which would damage competitiveness and damage employment . 
in this Parliament we constantly talk about the need to promote employment and jobs in Europe and yet we constantly pass measures which will have the effect of reducing employment . 
I suggest to you that the directive is bad in another respect , which has not been examined well enough in this debate . 
it is like so much European legislation . 
it is far too prescriptive . 
it sets in stone one particular model of recycling . 
the production line was invented about a hundred years ago , I believe , by Henry Ford and what we are proposing to do here is to create a sort of nineteenth century production line in reverse - to dismantle vehicles , to take the pieces apart and seek to recycle them . 
one thing we should stop and think about is the fact that there is a very uncertain market for recycled plastic bumpers of cars . 
the plastics industry for the most part does not want to take these things back and cannot economically do so . 
there is already a very successful industry out there which is shredding cars , recovering metals and recovering energy by the incineration of the non @-@ metallic parts . 
this is a very environmentally reasonable approach . 
it is just as good environmentally to burn old plastic as to burn new oil for energy recovery . 
this method of disposal of cars carries no cost and so would eliminate the whole issue of who pays because the " dead " car would actually have a small value going into the recycling and reclamation process . 
I would oppose this directive on the basis that it is too prescriptive , it ignores what is actually going on in the car recycling market at the moment and it sets in stone methods which are not necessarily the best environmentally , and are certainly very damaging economically . 
Mr President , the common position is sound , but it is up to Parliament to improve the common position on end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles . 
the Social @-@ Democratic Group has submitted a few important proposals for improvement over the past couple of days . 
I would especially draw your attention to Amendment No 45 , in which a choice is made in favour of laying the cost of disassembly and recycling at the door of the manufacturer , for new cars at any rate . 
consequently , consideration will also be given to recycling during the conception phase and production . 
for the cars currently on the road , it would be reasonable to share the cost , for example by setting up a fund such as that in the Netherlands . 
the common position stipulates that manufacturers should not only bear the cost , they should also take back end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles . 
this is a big problem in my opinion . 
I urge that car manufacturers should most definitely not be given the task of organising the dismantling and recycling of vehicles , as they would gain an excessive hold over the second @-@ hand components market . 
they would then determine their own prices . 
anyone who has been in an old car knows that this is to the detriment of the consumer and the amateur mechanic . 
the European consumer organisation , which has asked us to support the common position on this point , is to my mind letting the consumer down . 
a second argument for keeping the dismantling of cars out of the manufacturers ' clutches is the cost of transport . 
if car manufacturers all set up their own dismantling companies , this will necessitate transporting end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles over long distances . 
this is environmentally unfriendly but also expensive and does not benefit the consumer either . 
I would therefore appreciate your support for Amendment No 45 . 
Mr President , Commissioner , I have asked to speak again so that I can say a few more words at the close of this debate . 
if you travel to the Netherlands , you will find that every last owner can get rid of his car cost @-@ free . 
you will also find that these cars are suitably disposed of , that new material flows have been opened up in order to recycle materials , that 85 % of the weight of a car is recycled and that 92 % of all cars in the Netherlands are recycled . 
this is financed by a fund to which the buyer of a new car contributes . 
should this be condemned ecologically , Frau Breyer ? 
I do not think so . 
the Netherlands has an exemplary model for disposing of cars as per the wishes of the directive and the issue of whether the buyer of a new car should pay or , in the case of end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles currently driving around , the manufacturer , has nothing , absolutely nothing , to do with ecology ; it is a simple question of competition ! 
( applause from the PSE Group ) 
Mr President , the proposal we are discussing has a huge amount of advantages , mainly in the interests of preventing waste and encouraging re @-@ use , the recovery and recycling of components and the recovery of materials , etc . 
I think we have tabled a sound proposal . 
the main thread of the discussion is about whether or not the manufacturer , the vendor , or whoever , should take the end @-@ of @-@ life vehicle back without any cost . 
I will only give the example of my own country to illustrate how this system functions there without any problems . 
we have reached an agreement with all the parties involved . 
these include car manufacturers , second @-@ hand car dealers , the federation of the car industry , the metal processing firms , shredding firms and the government . 
an environmental policy agreement has been signed on a voluntary basis . 
the car industry - and Belgium produces a great many cars- did not have any problem with that . 
Belgians can deliver their cars back to the vendor without any cost . 
in connection with this , we have noticed how - quite contrary to what has been said here to the effect that the scheme would be to the detriment of employment - a number of small businesses have taken the recycling of materials to heart and are doing very well . 
some businesses have become hi @-@ tech businesses , because they managed to recycle certain materials , even materials which are not yet included in the directive . 
so this means that we are developing a new sector and new employment and doing the environment a huge favour into the bargain . 
I am in favour of collection free of charge . 
it worked for us . 
why would it not work elsewhere ? 
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , thank you for an interesting debate in which many important arguments have been presented . 
would you be so kind as to bear with me for a few minutes . 
allow me briefly to comment on some of the assumptions and principles behind the present directive . 
allow me also to begin by commenting on and responding to a couple of the most important arguments in this debate . 
first of all , I think I should repeat some of the basic facts which Mr Florenz and others have already mentioned . 
what we are discussing here is the fact that close on ten million cars are scrapped every year in the European Union , resulting in approximately as many millions of tons of waste . 
this means that almost ten million tons of waste are created by these cars , and approximately seven per cent of the latter are abandoned out in the open . 
moreover , they constitute environmentally hazardous substances of the worst kind . 
approximately ten per cent of lead production is to be found in cars , but also cadmium , chromium , mercury and other very dangerous substances . 
this is something you already know , but I would nonetheless also repeat it for the benefit of those who are listening . 
cars are one of the fastest growing sources of waste we have in Europe . 
we know that waste from cars exists and we know how we ought to be dealing with it , and there is no excuse for not taking action . 
the present directive has three aims . 
first of all , we want to stop heavy metals from being used in the manufacture of new cars . 
secondly , we want to establish the fact that the manufacturer is liable . 
we can no longer take care of these matters at the end of a product ' s life @-@ cycle . instead , we should avoid creating so much waste . 
we should see to it that we recycle as much as possible of the various contents of a product . 
thirdly , we wish to achieve the recycling objectives specified in the present directive . 
these are the three most important aims of the directive . 
this is , of course , because it is a waste of resources for us not to ensure that materials in cars are recycled . 
it is , above all , the manufacturer ' s resources we are wasting if we do not get to grips with a car ' s life @-@ cycle . 
two important questions have arisen in this regard . 
yes , there are in fact more than two questions , but I want to mention just two of the most important . 
first of all : who should pay ? 
and secondly : are we reducing the European car industry ' s competitiveness by means of the present proposal ? 
the first question , then , is about who should pay . 
the directive states that the polluter should pay and that the cost is to be borne mainly by the manufacturer in accordance with the principles to be found in the EU ' s treaty concerning the manufacturer ' s liability . 
it is nonetheless clear that the cost will be borne jointly by manufacturers and consumers . 
we have calculated that the cost of recycling cars does not constitute more than one per cent of the price of a new car . 
do we imagine , then , that the cost would disappear if we were not to adopt this directive ? 
no . 
clearly , we shall all have to bear the cost of serious damage to the environment , but it will be very much greater . 
moreover , the cost will have to be borne in the future . 
the cost will not therefore disappear , but now we are clarifying whose liability it is and how the cost is to be distributed . 
are we therefore talking about a car industry in crisis ? 
is it an unprofitable industry which we are discussing and which we really have to help by not imposing more taxes upon it ? is it the case that the car industry definitely cannot afford these ? 
is it the case that the motives behind the proposed measures are in actual fact concerned with reducing the competitiveness of the European car industry ? 
no , of course not . 
it is quite the opposite . 
do you believe that consumer demand for environmentally friendly cars and more fuel @-@ efficient cars is going to decline in the future ? what kind of requirements do you think our children and grandchildren and future legislators are going to make of cars ? 
naturally , that they should be environmentally friendly , that they should be recyclable , that they should be fuel @-@ efficient and that they should not pollute our environment . 
it is , of course , only in this way that we can create a future for the car industry . 
we must create forms of motive power which are not damaging to health and which are of such a kind that we can deal with the relevant waste , recycle materials and compete by means of environmentally friendly and fuel @-@ efficient cars . 
the fact that we have a European car industry which has already made great strides more than properly compensates for the fact that there are , in fact , a good many cars on European roads for which they must take responsibility . 
the cost is not insurmountable ; nor is the task an impossible one . 
if we develop motive power of the kind I have described , I am quite certain that market forces and commercial interests in the car industry will ensure that mechanisms develop for dealing with both the cost and the workload . 
these will consist of everything from insurance to sensible and effective scrapping and recycling systems . 
the industry itself will ensure that these systems are introduced in Europe . 
they will not represent an insurmountable cost for the European car industry . 
they will instead help industry to be in the vanguard of eventually producing environmentally friendly and more fuel @-@ efficient cars . 
we must do this for the sake of the environment . 
the costs will not disappear . nor will the waste disappear . 
but , otherwise , we must all of us , as taxpayers or citizens , foot the bill . what is more , the costs will be higher the longer we wait before taking action . 
that is what I should like to say by way of introduction . 
I also want to comment on the question as to whether there is to be any retroactive legislation . 
if we assume that , on average , a car has a life of eleven years , do Members , indeed does anyone , believe that we should wait for eleven years before we get to grips with this problem ? 
do you think that , when we legislate about chemicals , we should say that we are ignoring those chemicals which are already on the market and that we are legislating only for what is to be produced in the future ? 
clearly , we must consider the problem which exists here and now and the challenge presented by the existing range of cars . 
it is still not an insurmountable problem . 
we can deal with it . 
we already have an infrastructure . 
we have what we require in order to deal with end @-@ of @-@ life cars . 
I naturally hope that the result of today ' s vote will be a good one . 
if I have not already done so , I would also thank Mr Karl @-@ Heinz Florenz for the hard work he has put into this proposal on the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy . 
in fact , it is in many respects pioneering work when it comes to re @-@ use and manufacturer ' s liability . 
I believe it will have very positive and noticeable effects on the environment . 
we cannot continue to close our eyes to these matters . 
as I have said , we have both the knowledge and the resources to cope with these issues . 
after the first reading in the European Parliament in 1999 , the Commission ' s proposal ended up in an awkward political situation in the Council . 
however , we obtained a well @-@ balanced common position in July during the Finnish Presidency . 
now , we must ensure that the present legislative process is concluded successfully . 
a total of 48 amendments have been tabled . 
the Commission can adopt 10 amendments in their entirety . 
three amendments can be partially approved , and one can be approved in principle . 
certain amendments concern improvements to the Commission ' s proposal which we adopted as early as at the first reading or else they reintroduce into the directive such parts of the original proposal as the Council has removed . 
this applies to Amendment No 5 , excluding section 1 ; 8 and 9 , section 1 ; 10 and 12 , section 3 ; 15 , 16 , 20 , 22 , 24 and 25 . 
these amendments can all be approved . 
amendments Nos 6 and 21 are new ; the Commission can approve these . 
the Commission can also approve Amendment No 26 with certain editorial changes . 
I want to emphasise that a number of the other amendments affecting the proposal ' s basic components involve a considerable watering @-@ down of the level of environmental protection aimed at by the common position . 
they cannot therefore be approved . 
Parliament has traditionally made a major contribution to strengthening environmental legislation in Europe . 
it would amaze and depress me if it were not to do so today . 
I am very concerned about certain amendments from Parliament which bring the absolutely basic pillars of the present proposal into question . 
these concern , for example , the phasing @-@ out of heavy metals , manufacturer ' s liability and the requirement for recycling . 
I want to deal with these amendments on a group @-@ by @-@ group basis . 
amendments Nos 4 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 37 , 42 and 48 concern the phasing @-@ out of heavy metals . 
amendment No 12 involves a delay of at least ten years in bringing the provision into force . 
amendments Nos 13 , 28 , 32 , 37 , 42 and 48 involve introducing unnecessary conditions and exceptions . 
this would mean that the process of replacing dangerous substances would be implemented more slowly . 
amendments Nos 4 , 11 and 30 mean that heavy metals have to be separated from the waste before recycling . 
the Commission considers that the type of phasing @-@ out proposed in the common position is easier to apply from a technical point of view . 
amendments Nos 17 , 18 , 27 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 44 and 45 relate to the manufacturer ' s liability . 
the compromise reached by the Council is fair but fragile . 
the Commission does not consider that the amendments would improve the balance without , at the same time , creating tensions . 
I regret the confusion which arose recently due to internal documents from the Commission being wrongly used , so creating uncertainty about the Commission ' s attitude to the issue . 
I want to emphasise that , as early as 1997 , the Commission proposed a special clause concerning manufacturer ' s liability and that the Commission entirely supports the common position . 
this does not impose disproportionate costs upon manufacturers . far from it . 
amendments Nos 39 , 40 , 46 and 47 concern quantified objectives . 
the high level of protection aimed at by the common position would be very much undermined if the recycling objective for the year 2006 were removed . 
these amendments would also make the objectives awkward to deal with and difficult to supervise . 
allow me also - listen carefully to what I am saying now , because I have heard this reiterated in the debate - allow me to comment on the issue of vintage and " cherished " cars as mentioned in Amendments Nos 3 , 7 , and 9 , section 2 , and 35 . 
such vehicles are not covered by the definition of waste and are not therefore included under the directive . 
so , whatever has been stated in this regard , vintage cars and motorcycles are not included under the directive . 
we do not consider that Amendments Nos 2 and 14 add anything to the directive . 
amendment No 23 involves the Commission ' s having to adopt quality standards for reusable components . 
this is not covered by the directive . 
an ad hoc directive should therefore be demanded from the European Parliament and the Council . 
amendments Nos 29 , 31 and 41 water down the requirements concerning the dismantling of vehicles . 
there is a danger of Amendments Nos 31 and 41 reducing the chances of recycling plastic , tyres and glass . 
finally , the Commission cannot approve Amendments Nos 1 and 33 for reasons to do with legal clarity ; nor Amendment No 19 , which the Commission considers to be unnecessary at this stage . 
furthermore , Amendment No 43 does not fall within the directive ' s area of applicability . 
thank you very much , Commissioner . 
the debate is closed . 
we shall now proceed to the vote . 
vote 
Madam President , I would simply like to point out that during the procedure , we were not allowed either to table or , consequently , adopt amendments in the Committee . 
I do not know whether this is in order , and I would therefore ask you to verify the accuracy of the procedure which was followed before this report reached the House . 
Madam President , we simply have a few translation problems in this area too . 
we consider the English version to be the original text . 
to give you an example , in both paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Dutch and German versions , the equivalents of the English words : " in so far as " have been omitted . 
this is why I would ask you to consider the English version as the original version . 
thank you , Mr van Velzen . 
in response I shall say the same thing I said to Mrs McNally just now . 
I am very concerned about these translation problems which , unfortunately , we seem to be having increasingly , and I can assure you that we shall look into the matter very seriously indeed . 
in any case , the authoritative version is always , of course , the original language version . 
Madam President , the Socialist Group proposes the following oral amendment . 
I shall read it in English , which is the original language of the resolution . 
" condemns Mr Haider for his insults towards certain EU Member States and their leaders in the last few days in statements , which Foreign Minister Schüssel has failed to condemn . " 
( more than twelve Members of Parliament rise to their feet ) ( Parliament adopted the resolution ) 
explanations OF VOTE 
McNally Report ( A5 @-@ 0082 / 1999 ) 
in its communication " Women and Science " , the European Commission informs us of its good intentions of enlisting the support of women to enrich research in Europe . 
this is very good , and we are pleased to see it . 
the fact is there are too few women involved in research work in the European Union . 
we know that we can change this situation , in which women are underrepresented in the science sector , only by means of a policy of educational guidance which will systematically encourage a greater range of career choices for girls and , when they have obtained their degrees , by means of positive measures at the professional level . 
having said this , some of our fellow Members clearly have qualms because the report by the Committee on Women ' s Rights and Equal Opportunities which we have voted on contains one point which may lead to confusion and is interpreted by some as a quota stipulating that there must be 40 % female participating in research in Europe . 
this is patently not the case , since such a quota would not be realistic . 
indeed the report does not mention the time limit for this quota to be achieved . 
to set my fellow Members ' minds at ease and to reassure them , I have tabled an amendment to the resolution in which we simply take note of the fact that the Commission , in its communication , undertakes to make significant efforts to increase women ' s participation in Community research programmes , which is , after all , a praiseworthy goal . 
and why should we not note that the Commission ' s communication stipulates specifically that it considers a 40 % minimum level to be a crucial goal for women ' s participation at all levels in the implementation and management of research programmes ? 
it is not a quota ! 
it is a perfectly legitimate declaration of intent from the Commission , insofar as it concerns its own programmes and not those of Member States . the latter would be well advised , however , to follow the good example of the Commission , for once , and make the same efforts in their own research programmes . 
people must realise this ! 
I am pleased to see that the debate on Mrs McNally ' s report with a view to increasing and facilitating women ' s participation in professions in research and science , met with a fairly wide consensus . 
this necessary realistic and pragmatic policy , however , which will have to be associated with the elimination of the practical obstacles identified as unquestionable factors in this inequality must , as far as we are concerned , necessarily be based on the idea of complementarity , which is the only one capable of justifying a proactive policy on the subject . 
since the European Parliament chose to vote on a text that expressly resorted to the quota policy which my report for an opinion had attempted to denounce in no uncertain terms , and in spite of the general approach which I approve for the most part , I can do no other than abstain from the vote on Mrs McNally ' s report . 
second reading of the Florenz report ( A5 @-@ 0006 / 2000 ) 
Madam President , today in the second reading we have voted on the amendments to the Directive on end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles . 
I have rejected the entire directive , not least because Amendment No 34 to Article 12 and the amendments to Article 5 / 4 have not received an adequate majority here in the House . 
I come from a country which manufactures 50 % of the cars in the EU and it is precisely the free collection of end @-@ of @-@ life cars which is so financially onerous and unacceptable . 
here , in my opinion , the labour market is also considerably burdened by the costs arising to these companies . 
this cannot be a good thing in a European Union where we are ever mindful of employment . 
I consider that this is a serious defect and that , in principle , it does not befit our legal system . 
in my opinion , this directive is unacceptable for this reason . 
Madam President , I would like to comment on the Florenz report . 
I think that the vote has shown that although the common position of the Council has been toned down , the major groups here ( and above all the German delegates of the major groups ) have not , thank God , succeeded in destroying the heart of the directive , namely manufacturer responsibility . 
unfortunately , there has been a toning down of the effective ecological material flow policy , i.e. through the obligatory risk assessment of materials whose harmful effect on health has been known for years . 
we know that lead , mercury , cadmium and hexavalent chromium present high toxic and health risks and numerous Community directives have succeeded in restricting their usage without any risk assessment being made . 
here , unfortunately , the European Parliament has bowed to the interests of industry . 
I am nevertheless extremely pleased that there was no majority for the amendments of Florenz , Lange and others who have actually sought to lever out manufacturer responsibility and make consumers solely responsible for the cost of environmentally compatible disposal of end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles . 
I found this to be an extremely shameful attempt and I am pleased that it failed , that the attempt by one large government and the delegates of a large Member State did not gain a majority , by which I mean the attempt to dominate the voting process of the European Parliament on grounds of the interests of its national industries . 
Madam President , although I too have spent most of my life in fast cars , I agree with my colleague , Mr Florenz , that the directive on scrapping cars must make it clear that vintage cars are not included . 
these splendid cars do not constitute waste . 
that is why I voted in favour of the amendments . 
neither can we fix what the age for a vintage car should be as there are very great differences from one country ' s statutes to another ' s . 
in this way vehicles of historic value can be preserved for future generations . 
we cannot forget old car enthusiasts either , of whom there are more than 50 000 in Finland alone . 
they are involved in low @-@ profile work of valuable cultural importance . 
- ( SV ) The parliamentary process concerning this question has been confusing , to say the least . 
before the vote at the plenary sitting , new amendments have been tabled such as have already been voted down by the Committee . 
in the divided situation which has now arisen , we therefore consider that the Council ' s wordings are the best . 
we need a directive in this area , and we also therefore want to avoid a complicated conciliation procedure . 
the directive concerning end @-@ of @-@ life vehicles will stand as an example for future legislation . 
it is therefore important that the manufacturer ' s liability should be clear . this should not in any way be jeopardised . 
today , Parliament is examining , for the last time , this text on ' end @-@ of @-@ life ' vehicles and what is to be done with them : their destruction , a commendable intention with regard to our environment . 
there are , however , two considerations which must certainly be dealt with within this text . 
first of all , who is to bear the financial costs of this destruction ? 
we must all ensure that it is not always the same person , i.e. the vehicle owner , who pays . 
he or she already pays enough in taxes for this vehicle , which is a bottomless pit in financial terms . 
we have recently had cause to talk about the ' polluter pays ' principle . we should apply this principle rationally and calmly , correctly targeted and without ideology . 
another essential point that must be included in this text is the express exclusion of vintage vehicles from its scope . 
one might make the claim that there is no need to state it explicitly in writing because it is an obvious point , but I feel that it is a point that should be made in writing because there is every interest in adopting clear texts . 
so let us vote for these amendments in order to preserve these gems of the automobile industry . 
these old vehicles are testimony to a culture and a passion which should be recognised and respected by Europe , if we are not to water down each of our specific identities . 
there is no lack of examples amongst European texts , and we all know how much debate and argument is caused by a lack of clarity and precision . 
I only need to mention the case of Directives 79 / 409 and 92 / 43 . 
the precise wording of texts provides a guarantee and legal certainty for those people who will have to apply or live by these texts on a daily basis . 
it is not the job of the MEP to generate litigation or legal proceedings for judges in any arena . that would not be fulfilling our mission . 
on the contrary , we must adopt crystal @-@ clear texts in order to limit legal disputes . 
. 
( NL ) That the Florenz report has caused such a stir has been proven by the powerful lobby machine which has been set in motion by both industry and the environmental movement . 
I regret that the manufacturers have harangued the European Parliament and the Council with a whole ream of arguments which either cut no ice or were simply false . 
I dare say this because I took the trouble to go into the field and collect information from , among others , scrapyards which already recycle car components successfully . 
they made it clear to me that the arguments concerning lack of safety , for example , are nonsense . 
the car lobby was unsuccessful today and I am pleased about that . 
the directive remains in place . 
I expect that we will achieve an excellent result in the reconciliation and that the efforts to achieve a better living environment will triumph over unreasonable industrial requirements . 
- My party opposed this measure and the proposed amendments . 
there are few things more certain in life than taxes , death and pollution . 
however , there is also nothing more certain t