<CHAPTER ID=0>
<SPEAKER ID=1 NAME="Stihler">
Madam President, I wish to inform the House that today is the UK's No Smoking Day.
As half a million EU citizens die needlessly each year from smoking yet 80% of smokers want to give up, I hope that colleagues will see fit to sign the tabled written declaration calling for an EU no smoking day.
Today alone 1500 EU citizens will die from smoking.
Let us, the European Parliament, lead the way in preventing these deaths.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=2 NAME="President">
Thank you, Mrs Stihler.
I have the feeling that the applause from your fellow Members shows that they have indeed listened to your message and I do not doubt for a single moment that they will all observe the UK' s No Smoking Day.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=3 NAME="Watson">
Madam President, I simply wish to ask whether we could once again check that the no smoking rules in this House are being enforced.
It has come to my attention that was not the case earlier this week.
I would urge renewed vigour in the application of those rules in this House.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=4 NAME="President">
Thank you, Mr Watson.
I see that Mrs Banotti has indeed been listening to you, as have the other quaestors, and we shall look into this.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=5 NAME="Banotti">
Madam President, as you know I am a very enthusiastic anti-smoker.
However, I would just like to remind colleagues that they can smoke in comfort and away from everybody else in the designated area over there to the right at the window.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=6 NAME="President">
Fine, thank you, Mrs Banotti.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=1>
Follow-up to Nice
<SPEAKER ID=7 NAME="President">
The next item is the Council and the Commission statements on the follow-up to Nice.
<P>
I would like to welcome the President-in-Office. Mrs Lindh, you now have the floor.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=8 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Lindh">
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 'I am delighted to see that the Commission has taken concrete steps to include European citizens in a debate that is going to determine the long-term future of the Union.'
This is the beginning of the first contribution on the website on the future of Europe from Russell Pickard of the UK.
He hopes that as many citizens as possible will express their opinion on fundamental issues such as 'What kind of Europe do we - Europe' s citizens - want?'
<P>
'If we want things to change, let us 'be' the change' , writes Vincente Garcia-Delgado Segués from Spain.
'Now every European citizen can say exactly what he or she wants - whether negative or positive - and the responsible leaders in the EU can listen to the citizens and take into account their wishes and hopes' , writes Ann Catherine Talbro from Denmark.
Kurt Linderoos from Finland proposes that all EU citizens contact an additional fourteen people, one from every other Member State, to discuss the future of the EU.
<P>
Last week, Parliament' s Vice President David Martin, the Prime Ministers of Sweden and Belgium and President Prodi launched the debate on the future of Europe.
You, Madam President, the two Prime Ministers and the President of the Commission made a joint statement and the website, which was initiated jointly by Parliament, the Council and the Commission, was opened.
<P>
With last week' s launch and today' s debate we are leaving "the follow-up to Nice" behind us and instead entering into the debate on the future of Europe.
According to the Nice Declaration, this broad debate on the future of Europe must be followed by a new Intergovernmental Conference in 2004.
This year, the Swedish and the Belgian Presidencies will work with Parliament and the Commission to encourage wide-ranging discussions with all parties concerned: representatives of national parliaments and of public opinion, schools and universities and representatives of civil society.
We will place great emphasis on what the various political groups in Europe, inside and outside this House, have to say.
<P>
We must naturally include young people in this debate - it is their future in Europe we are discussing - as well as the candidate countries, as they too will be involved in building the Europe of the future.
The entire process must take place with the greatest possible openness. Our goal is to bring the Union and its institutions closer to its citizens.
<P>
According to the decision made in Nice the process will address issues including restricting the competencies of the EU and the Member States so as to reflect the principle of subsidiarity, the future status of the EU' s Charter of Fundamental Rights, simplification of the treaties without changing their content and the role of national parliaments in the structure of Europe.
<P>
When we initiated the debate last week at one of the European Schools in Brussels it was clear that the interests of citizens extend far beyond the examples of institutional issues given in Nice.
I believe that it is correct and important for us to be able to conduct a broader debate on the future of Europe.
If we are to begin this discussion at the right end, we should, just like the school pupils in Brussels and the contributions on the website, ask the fundamental questions of what tasks we want the Union to take on and what role we want the Union to play in Europe and globally.
<P>
We have to be able to show our citizens that the EU is a strong force on the important issues: dealing with globalisation, human rights and democracy, a common asylum and immigration policy, employment and growth throughout Europe, combating crime, the environment, sustainable development and food safety.
<P>
It is important that we begin this debate with the factual issues, which our citizens can identify with.
In this work I really look forward to the contribution of Parliament as it is you Members who have direct contact with your voters around Europe.
This house has so often spearheaded important European debates on openness, the environment, expansion, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to name but a few examples.
It is now time to move from discussing form to also discussing facts and substance.
<P>
Then it is, of course, also important to return to the question of form, the best way in which we can reform the Union' s institutions and way of working.
Let me first say that the community method, which has played such an important role in European cooperation, must naturally retain a strong position in the future too, even if, in some areas, we supplement it with the new open coordination method.
A strong Europe requires strong institutions.
I noticed this myself when I was environment minister and worked closely with both the Commission and Parliament.
<P>
Let me also say that from the Swedish point of view we have an open attitude to the question of the form continued preparations will take.
I can see both advantages and disadvantages in the 'convention method' which several players have suggested as an important or possible model for debate.
<P>
Madam President, we are at the start of an incredibly exciting process.
The future of Europe is now being discussed throughout the Union, from Termonfeckin in Ireland today, to the Canary Islands in Spain next week, the following week in Kiruna in the far north of Sweden and the following day in Sparta in Greece.
<P>
Next week, as the first in a line of measures, this Parliament will organise a meeting with participants from the parliaments in the Member States and the candidate countries.
I look forward to being involved in the debate next week.
<P>
Later this year, the Commission will make an important contribution through its White Paper on European Governance.
I myself will also take up this discussion in the Council (General Affairs) and with the candidate countries in conjunction with the unofficial meeting of foreign ministers in Nyköping.
Sweden will also initiate a conference on the external role of the EU this autumn.
<P>
Every country will naturally conduct a national debate in the light of its own traditions and conditions.
We ourselves are responsible for ensuring that there is a broad debate which also involves the national parliaments and addresses the issues and organisations which are relevant in our respective countries.
<P>
What I have talked about so far naturally only concerns the very first initiatives.
The process will continue and the participants will inspire each other.
The Swedish and the Belgian Presidencies, Parliament and the Commission will share the main responsibility for this first phase, which demands close and trusting cooperation.
The internal debate within Parliament will be particularly interesting to follow.
The preliminary signals we have received are exciting and I look forward to the resolution from this house which is planned in May.
<P>
A report on issues concerning the future will be submitted to the meeting of the European Council in Gothenburg in June.
The European Council will then adopt a view on the continued process at the meeting in Laeken/Brussels in December.
<P>
Madam President, what kind of Europe do we, the citizens of Europe, want?
The question has been asked - let the debate commence!
Robert Schuman once said that Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements.
It is important to remember this even today.
<P>
Let the debate begin. Let us start from all those who have participated in the debate from the days of Schuman onwards and let us include all the young people who are talking to us today through the schools of Europe or participating in the debate on the website.
I now look forward to hearing the visions of the Members of Parliament on the future of Europe.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=9 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Barnier">
Madam President, Madam Minister, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we too wish to hear the proposals and suggestions made by the Members of Parliament but, if I may, I would like to sum up the position of the European Commission on this major debate, which was promised at Nice in the early hours of the morning, when the ink had not yet dried on the agreement. It was almost as if the Heads of State and Government were not really satisfied with what they had just done after three days of negotiations.
So they decided, at the same time, to call for a broader-based and more in-depth debate on the future of the European Union.
<P>
Less than a week ago, the Swedish Presidency, together with the future Belgian Presidency, invited Parliament and the Commission to participate in this debate.
<P>
In a broader sense, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission looks forward to and will encourage this debate on European issues.
The Commission had already structured its approach a year ago, as I am sure you remember, by proposing, with you and with your support, a dialogue on Europe which was to be a first step.
However, for this debate to achieve the objectives laid down in the joint declaration signed on 7 March by Nicole Fontaine, your President, Göran Persson, Guy Verhofstadt and Romano Prodi to highlight the challenges facing the European Union and encourage proposals, it is necessary to define the principles, the method and the agenda of this debate.
In the few weeks ahead of us, let us take the time to work on these principles, this method and the agenda.
This is, and will continue to be, the subject of work we will be carrying out together, especially in Parliament and the Commission, throughout the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies, as we must achieve a high level of ambition concerning this debate and future reforms in Laeken.
<P>
A basic principle, first of all: it is the content of the debate, the future of the Union, which must inspire the form of this debate and remain its priority.
What sort of Europe do we want in the future?
What do we want to do together?
What will our plan be?
Do we want more integration or not?
Do we or do we not want a more political Europe?
I will add another question: how do we reform the Community model?
<P>
Even if it seems difficult to find simple answers to these complex issues, and perhaps for that very reason, the debate must enable our citizens to become aware of them and participate in it.
<P>
The first principle is therefore that of transparency and of the objectivity with which this debate must be conducted. We must not deny, indeed we must encourage, the expression of contradictory opinions.
We know that, in each of our Member States, opinions are diverse and often contradictory.
In order to respect the principle of transparency, however, we must ask disturbing questions, as I have just said.
<P>
The second principle is that of proximity.
Such a debate cannot be joined correctly if it is conducted solely from Brussels or Strasbourg.
There is the Internet, of course, which today is an irreplaceable information and dialogue tool, and this debate is already open on the website, even though, I admit, this site is far from perfect.
However, dialogue over the Internet is not enough.
The European debate must be opened up to people where they live, where they work, where they study, and to their national and regional elected representatives. So, it must, of course, take place at a European level and be based first and foremost on the debates organised in each Member State at the most appropriate level which is, from my point of view, the level which is closest to the people of Europe.
If the Community institutions can make a contribution to the organisation of the debate - and the Commission is playing and will continue to play its part in this - these national debates will first of all have to be organised by the Member States.
<P>
The third principle could be that of anticipation.
Even though the candidate countries are not yet members of the European Union, they soon will be in a matter of years.
The future of this Union, therefore, concerns them here and now as much as it does existing Member States. I believe that we must find a way to ensure that they are involved in the debate; that they take on an active role.
<P>
After the principles, ladies and gentlemen, we now come to the method.
The final decision-making stage of this debate which, as you have said, Madam Minister, we hope will be as short as possible, will, of course, be the Intergovernmental Conference in 2004. We hope it will take place as early as possible in 2004, as was suggested by President Romano Prodi.
It is only by holding an Intergovernmental Conference as provided for in the Treaties that the Treaties can be reformed or changed.
We know now that this is the only possible method.
<P>
On the other hand, we also know that we must make careful preparations for this IGC and, without doubt, differently than in the case of the preceding IGCs in Amsterdam and Nice.
We must translate the challenges of the public debate into concrete proposals for the revision of the Treaties.
The structure or the competent body must, I believe, find inspiration precisely in the model or the precedent of the Convention thanks to which, in the course of a few months, the European Union adopted a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was solemnly proclaimed in Nice.
In other words, this structure or this body must not only be involved in debate but also in work and putting forward proposals, bringing together the different sources of the democratic legitimacy of Europe: representatives of the Members States, the European Parliament, national parliaments and the European Commission.
<P>
Having said that, many questions remain open.
What will the decision-making procedures of this body or this future convention be?
What will its composition be? Most notably, what place will be reserved for the representatives of the candidate countries?
What will its mandate be?
Does this preparation have to follow the public debate or is it preferable to undertake it in parallel throughout the process leading up to the IGC?
<P>
The Commission is very attentive to the replies that the European Parliament is giving and will give to these different questions of procedure.
And we ourselves are working on this.
I also think, Madam President, that our proposals, yours and ours, must be brought into line as closely as possible in the run-up to the European Council in Laeken.
And so I think we must step up the work done together by our two institutions, in consultation of course with the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies.
To this end, it will also be essential that the structure called upon to accommodate the debate is not a place reserved for experts alone, but rather a permeable structure which is open to external contributions.
<P>
Finally, having talked about the principles and the method, I would like to say a few words about the agenda for this debate.
Throughout recent years and this very long round of interinstitutional negotiations which began in Maastricht and ended, at least temporarily, in Nice, the European Parliament and the Commission have always united their efforts to ensure that real reform can see the light of day.
And at this stage, Madam President, I want to pay tribute to you and to thank you as well as Chairman Napolitano and the members of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs for the intelligent work you have carried out in close cooperation with us.
This was especially true, I think, of the last IGC, on the occasion of which, in its resolutions of November 1999 and February 2000, Parliament had expressed the desire to discuss global reform of the institutions in the same spirit as the Commission.
I think we must now keep this convergence intact, even if this means that, beyond our work together, we have to open doors and windows, stretch out a hand, listen and participate in a much broader debate.
<P>
If we really want to address all the challenges facing the Europe of the future, the next IGC cannot settle for simply examining the four issues mentioned in the Nice annex, which are constitutional in nature.
In all honesty, some of these four issues, at least two in my opinion, may have a negative or even a regressive impact on the level of integration of the European Union, if they are tackled in the wrong way.
So let us not be afraid to tackle these four issues and let us not tackle just these four issues.
On these four issues, then, which are simplification of the Treaties, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the debate on powers and the place of national parliaments in the European architecture, let us be careful not to undermine the Community acquis or weaken the Community method by tackling them in an inappropriate manner.
<P>
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, to successfully turn this public debate into discussions which are necessarily more technical and precise at the next IGC would be a measure of our success in achieving a more ambitious reform than that obtained in Nice.
It would also be an effective remedy to counteract the fears and all the prejudices which these fears underline or support and which some people bandy about to slow down the progress of European integration.
For these two reasons at least, which may be crucially important in the runup to the enlargement of the Union, the European Commission, its President and all the members of the College of Commissioners will leave no stone unturned to breathe life into this major debate which was promised in Nice by the Heads of State and Government.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=10 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Poettering">
<SPEAKER ID=11 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Barón Crespo">
Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I would like to welcome this debate which is finally taking place in the European Parliament, and the presence of Minister Anna Lindh.
It is she who can interpret for us the statement in Annex IV, which has become statement 23, which we do not believe was simply the result of fatigue and frustration during the early hours of Monday, but which is a modification, a development, and not merely repentance, but a political change towards greater democracy.
<P>
The President-in-Office has said that the debate began on 7 March.
I have taken good note of what she said and furthermore I would like to thank her publicly - because I raised the question at the previous plenary session - for the fact that Parliament has finally been incorporated into the statement of 7 March, something which did not happen initially, and that you have amended the letter that you sent us which had rather too much of a tone of the secretariat of the Council, including annexes.
You have produced a shorter letter so that we can understand one other better.
You have launched a website.
If I may be so bold, my Group had already raised the issue on 1 March.
Then you began the debate in the European School and I must point out that you were really playing on home ground, because the children are sons and daughters of European officials and they are well-versed.
The night before you put very pertinent questions to the parents.
I think that it would be worth going to Kiruna or the Canary Islands to speak to the ordinary folk.
In this instance, I think you were playing with an advantage.
<P>
To turn to the heart of the matter, I must say that my Group, as we stated in plenary, agrees with President Prodi' s proposal for a structured debate in three phases, because this is neither an academic debate, a chat over a cup of coffee, nor a talk show.
This debate must yield results.
The important issue for my Group is to know how you see the organisation of the debate, because since I agree with and respect Sweden' s essential role and tradition of openness and transparency, you will agree with me, Madam President, that the shock may be even greater if, after holding a very broad debate, open to civil society, we then take decisions behind closed doors.
What is unacceptable today will be even more so in the future.
It is very important, therefore, to know how you view the structuring by phases, especially because we are in representative democratic systems, and how you view the second phase, in which the various representatives of civil society, which are basically the European Parliament, the Parliaments of the Member States, the Council, the governments and the Commission, can truly make our contribution.
The NGOs, various forums, colleges and universities must also participate.
This is an absolutely decisive question.
We propose an open and transparent method which involves all the participants.
That is what gave us a successful convention and we believe that it is absolutely essential that the Swedish Presidency, without waiting for Laeken, makes some proposals on method, because in Laeken content will be discussed and you have an historic opportunity to lay a first stone, to launch this debate, giving it order and structure.
<P>
To this end, you can count on our support.
And although, in the end, we have corrected the statement of 7 March, I must say that it did not have the most auspicious start.
We hope that the Swedish Presidency, with the greatest respect for its democratic and open tradition, is capable of understanding the message, which I believe Parliament and the Commission agree on, and that this process may begin, in order to ensure that a debate is held and that decisions are taken on the future of Europe.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=12 NAME="Cox">
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, on behalf of my group I welcome the tone of the Council's contribution and the content of the Commission's contribution.
It is early days yet for us to have a definitive idea of how this process will develop, but I do believe that you, Madam President, have been excessively cautious and I would like to raise one or two questions with you and invite you to respond to them at the end of the debate.
<P>
You have said that you look forward to seeing the European Parliament contribution and, of course, the resolution in May. I join you in that.
You have said that you can see advantages and disadvantages in the convention method and I am aware that many in the Council would share that view.
Could you please expand on that and not leave it in suspended animation?
Part of the purpose of this dialogue is for us to seek rational solutions if people perceive disadvantages in what we propose.
So please could you let us have your assessment of the pros and cons to which you have referred.
<P>
You have referred to the four dimensions in the Nice annex, the debate on competencies, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments.
You also, if I understood the translation correctly, believe that the Treaty should be simplified but without changing its content.
Is it possible to look at competencies, the role of national parliaments and the role of the charter and not change the content of the Treaty?
That seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.
<P>
Like the other institutions, the European Parliament is currently considering how things might be presented for the next Intergovernmental Conference.
I and my group strongly believe that the convention method could be adopted.
This Parliament has a democratic legitimacy. It is rooted and founded in the European treaties.
We are not a mendicant seeking alms at the European door.
We have a right - in fact a duty - of participation.
I believe the convention method open to the Member States, national parliaments, the Commission and perhaps ideally also to candidate states can provide a very good framework - not necessarily a single-choice menu, but a framework of rational and consistent choices - and an Intergovernmental Conference can then be invited to proceed.
<P>
Finally, without anticipating the future too much, my own group feels sufficiently strongly about this participation that if Parliament was inappropriately excluded or diminished in its institutional role we would consider recommending that it should not give any opinion on an Intergovernmental Conference.
<P>
That would be a difficult decision and I hope it will not be necessary but it is a constitutional requirement under Article 48 that this House should give an opinion before an IGC even though, regrettably, we have no right of assent after an IGC.
That is something we should note at this stage because full democratic participation is vital.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=13 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Frassoni">
Madam President, 2001 is the year of public debate. I am truly amazed that the presidency has not announced an initiative at European level involving civil society.
The Internet is not enough, Madam President. There was talk of the possibility of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission organising a great initiative, geared to mobilising civil society to study and write about Europe' s aims and its future.
It seems that that initiative has encountered some strange and inexplicable resistance, even within this House from a large group on your left, Madam President.
It really is a sin, especially as the utter dearth of ideas the President of the Council has presented to us in - if I may say so - a rather bureaucratic and vague speech, demonstrates how much our governments are in need of some fresh inspiration.
Why is Sweden abandoning an initiative which could give its presidency a positive image and also allow it to fulfil the mandate it received at Nice?
The dialogue with civil society is a great deal more than a rhetorical flourish or a few e-mails.
<P>
I agree that we need to have national debates, but there is now such a thing as European public opinion and, at this stage, it needs to mature. This will also facilitate the preparations for the Laeken Council which should be preceded by a great conference of European national parliaments, the natural follow-up to the public debate supposed to have taken place this year.
That is the only way to make the debate on the future of Europe public and exciting, and that is the only way Parliament and the Commission will be able to find the allies they so badly need to break the purely intergovernmental logic of the forthcoming reform, give words like 'convention' and 'Community method' a revolutionary and constitutional meaning and make the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference more than a mere formality.
<P>
Madam President, please tell us whether or not there is room in your programme for a European initiative like that, and if not, why not?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=14 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Kaufmann">
Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, as you know, many of my fellow Members are critical of the Nice Treaty.
My group - and I personally - are also deeply concerned about the future of the Union, because numerous issues which determine the daily concerns and needs of the people are still unresolved or have only been tackled half-heartedly.
More importantly, we are still a long way from a social Europe.
<P>
Nice - I am convinced and many of my fellow Members obviously share this view - has weakened the Community.
In the final analysis, the governments simply fought to maintain their national right of veto.
More democracy, greater transparency, a greater ability to act and take decisions - all were left out of the Treaty, which is why the follow-up to Nice must tackle a programme of ambitious and truly far-reaching reform with a twofold purpose.
First, it must not reverse the progress already made towards integration. I specifically share the concern expressed by Commissioner Barnier in this regard.
Secondly, we need reforms which make the Union truly viable for the future.
<P>
In my view, this means introducing a quasi-constitutional process, as a result of which a unified Europe is established by the will of its people.
It means holding a broad, public, open debate. But it also means, in my view, that the Intergovernmental Conference is no longer the right method for taking Europe forward.
We need a different method.
As a member of the convention working on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, having experienced its success first hand, I expressly recommend the convention method as the right way for us to work together and take Europe forward.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=15 LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Ribeiro e Castro">
Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the situation in which we currently find ourselves is rather strange: Nice has not yet been ratified, much less come into force and yet we are already debating the 'follow-up to Nice' .
We know what has led us to this point but, politically speaking, it is not a good idea to adopt a Treaty with the next Treaty already in mind; this should never be done and can only be a sign of a series of mistakes, a succession of slip-ups, not to say a whole forest of barely disguised lies.
<P>
Now that we have reached this point, however, and that the debate has already begun, we must draw the lessons from the failures in Nice and we in the European Parliament must learn how to do things differently in future, for 2004. Otherwise, we will be in danger of repeating the same mistakes, the same frustrations and the same failures.
I wish to say two things that I think are crucial: firstly, we must listen more and talk less.
As Members of this Parliament, our duty is not just to speak.
Often, however, on these fundamental issues, it is our duty to know how to listen, to listen and to act on the genuine feelings of our citizens and not only on the corporate desires of our institutions.
Secondly, we must allow debates to take place at national level and not be afraid of them.
The issues that ran aground in Nice are the same issues that had previously floundered in Amsterdam, and many of them have been on hold since Maastricht.
These issues concern our citizens and the future of the Nation-States very closely, and I would therefore say that what we need most of all at the moment is not so much a European debate but 15 in-depth national debates. Alternatively, thinking in terms of enlargement, we need 27 genuine in-depth national debates held by the Portuguese with the Portuguese people, by the British with the British people, by the Germans with the German people, by the Czechs with the Czech people, by the Poles with the Polish people etc. on what they want the European Union' s future to be.
Only in this way will we be able to achieve, by 2004, a decision-making body that is properly equipped to take the decisions of the future. Otherwise, we will run aground on the same mistakes and embarrassing failures that we saw in Nice.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=16 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Dupuis">
Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, Mr Barnier, ladies and gentlemen, a fundamental point seems to have been recognised at last by Parliament.
There were very good reasons to look ahead to the next conference.
I am very pleased to see that this Parliament has remembered that there will in fact be elections in 2004, that it was not elected in perpetuity, and that there was a certain amount of interference between Parliament and the appointments that had been proposed to us.
<P>
Basically, we can only say that there is still not much meat in the pot, as the Italians say, and that we are talking about the gender of angels, that is, the role and the links between the national parliaments and the European Parliament. This is a subject which, like the Loch Ness monster, keeps rearing its head in our debates but has never got us very far.
The people of Europe are not very interested in this kind of debate.
They would rather know who does what at European and at national level. They would like a bit less Baroque construction and a bit more clarity.
They would like the European Parliament to have a bit more influence over matters which concern them rather than over matters which do not concern them. They would like national parliaments to have a bit more visibility and a bit more influence over issues which should clearly be left to national parliaments.
<P>
The people of Europe would also perhaps like to be able to elect the President of the Commission, for example, so that they know who is responsible for making the major choices, and for the major issues which must be decided at European level.
<P>
My view is that we must not think civil society is always lagging behind in the debates we are able to have here within the European Parliament.
Unfortunately, the contrary is often the case and our Parliament should perhaps travel somewhat more amongst the people of Europe to equip itself with new ideas.
<P>
I would finally like to address a question to the President-in-Office, to the President of the Commission and, above all, to the Chairman of the Group of the European People' s Party and European Democrats, my friend, Mr Poettering.
I hear that the Belgian Minister, Mr Renders, a Liberal, is proposing to create a new Baroque figure, a 'Mr Euro' on the model of Mr CFSP, which was disputed not only by us but also, I believe, very forcefully by Mr Poettering and by the Group of the European People' s Party.
Is Mr Poettering in favour of the creation of this slightly Baroque figure of a 'Mr Euro' on the model of Mr CFSP, as I believe I heard him say in his conclusion of the European People' s Party Congress in Berlin?
I would be very grateful for an answer to this question.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=17 LANGUAGE="DA" NAME="Bonde">
Madam President, I should like to congratulate the Swedish Presidency on a good home page.
It is splendid to be able to see agendas for meetings in the various working parties.
May we also be given the names of the participants and access to the documents and minutes from the meetings?
I would also congratulate the presidency on the Futurum home page initiative.
Why, however, must it start with interventions from the top, from Mr Persson, Mr Verhofstadt, Mr Prodi and Mr Barnier?
Why are there not also interventions from people who are opposed to the Treaty of Nice and the centralisation of more administrative power in Brussels?
How can a Swedish President-in-Office issue invitations to a debate at the European School in Brussels without having a single critical voice on the panel?
According to Eurobarometer, only 18% of EU citizens prefer decisions to be made in Brussels.
63% prefer them to be made at local, regional or national levels.
Why do the 18% all have places on the panel in the first debate about our future, while the 63% are not represented at all?
<P>
The critics of the EU in my group and in the intergroup, SOS Democracy, are prepared to engage in debate both at the European School and in community centres.
We should like to explain why we wish to see an open, democratic and slimmed-down EU in which decisions are taken close to the people they affect, an EU which addresses far fewer cross-border issues, but then whose work is free from bureaucracy, waste and fraud.
In future, initiatives for devising common rules should be taken by the national parliaments and not by the Commission or Parliament.
Why not create a sort of council of the parliaments that could meet a couple of times a year and agree upon the work programme and the legal basis for projected bills?
It is the legal basis which, of course, decides whether it is to be a case of voluntary coordination or binding rules.
In that way, it will be elected representatives from the Member States who decide in each case whether decision making is to be transferred to the EU from the electorate and elected representatives in the Member States.
In that way, democracy will at least have a chance in relation to the present system of legislation by officials to which we have become accustomed, even if all fifteen Member States profess to be democracies.
We are, of course, in the absurd situation in which, if it were one of the candidate countries which adopted laws in the same way as we do, we should have to turn down the country concerned for not being democratic.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=18 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Hager">
Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency.
A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice.
I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today.
But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today.
<P>
During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council' s victories or the Commission' s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament' s defeats.
I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words.
Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another; surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that.
<P>
I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary; avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=19 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Méndez de Vigo">
Madam President, I would firstly like to welcome Mrs Lindh.
We work very well with the Secretary of State, Mr Danielsson, and it is therefore a pleasure to have you here today.
<P>
Mrs Lindh, I believe that I do not need to speak at length, since the President of our Group, Mr Poettering, has made a clear, apposite and brilliant speech in which he has spoken loud and clear.
Therefore, allow me simply to point out certain issues on what we expect from the Swedish Presidency and from this European Council in Gothenburg.
<P>
You have said that we have to organise the debate.
Of course we do.
I agree with the words of the Socialist spokesman: the 7th was a good start, but we have to do more.
Therefore, what we want is for you to structure the debate, to make proposals to structure the debate.
How must this be done?
This Parliament has certain ideas and we are very happy to give them to you.
However, as a starter, I will say that it has to take place on a national level, in democracy that is close to the people, and on a European level.
<P>
This debate is very important and cannot be closed. It cannot be simply delivered on a plate, ready-made.
This debate must have conclusions, which will make up the second phase. This debate would be frustrating for the participants if it did not include room for drawing up and proposing ideas.
That is what we call the convention method.
<P>
The convention which drew up the Charter of Fundamental Rights was a success, because it brought together national and European legitimacy and it included transparency, publicity and participation by the people.
Furthermore, all of this led to a document which you yourselves, at the European Council in Biarritz, recognised as being positive.
Therefore, things may be amended, others may be joined together, but it provides us with a model which may be of use. I think that it will be very useful to work together on this model.
<P>
Finally, with regard to the timetable, it seems to me that if we do all of this, the IGC 2004 will have to be very brief, since the work will already be largely completed.
<P>
I believe it is also very important that this model allows for the participation of the candidate countries.
Europe is not only being built by those of us already in the Union, but also by those who are waiting to join it.
<P>
Madam President-in-Office, I believe that you are going to take away a very favourable impression of this debate today, since all the participating spokespeople from the extraordinarily varied Groups have said more or less the same thing.
The parliamentary groups are whistling the same tune. I believe that if we work with you and, of course, with the Commission - and I would like to thank Commissioner Barnier for his marvellous speech - from this one common tune, together we will be able to compose a fine European symphony.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=20 NAME="Napolitano">
Madam President, Commissioner Barnier' s speech has confirmed how close the positions of the Commission and Parliament are.
<P>
I listened carefully to the speech made by the representative of the Council, and it is to her that I would like to address a few brief comments.
<P>
Mrs Lindh, the new IGC is the last thing to be talking about.
The important issue is how to get there.
You have called for maximum transparency in the debate now beginning and in the whole process described in the Nice Declaration, with a debate as close as possible to the citizens.
Well, the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference before the Nice Summit demonstrated minimum transparency and maximum distance from the citizens.
A new method is vital.
<P>
There is a precedent, which is the Convention for the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
That idea came from the Heads of State or Government, felicitously invented by them in Helsinki, so it is hard to understand why those same Heads of State or Government should now mistrust that method.
It is not a problem of the name; it is a problem of substance. As well as the Commission, the European Parliament and the national parliaments should be involved not just in the debate but in drafting and drawing up the proposals as well.
We should be writing the answers to the great questions on the future of the Union together.
<P>
Mrs Lindh, we feel sure the Swedish Presidency will want to commit itself to dispelling the extraordinary suspicion meeting every proposal made by any of the groups in the European Parliament.
<P>
We hope the resolution from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and hence from Parliament as a whole, will also help to make you more convinced than you are this morning and, in the meantime, we look forward to our meeting of 20 March with the representatives of the national parliaments of both Member States and candidate countries.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=21 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Malmström">
Madam President, I have looked at Futurum, a website for debate and dialogue which has recently opened, and it is good.
This morning, 76 citizens from different countries had chosen to take part in the debate.
Of course, this figure could have been considerably higher, but this is a good start.
<P>
The question is naturally what will happen to this input to the debate.
Will these opinions lead their own lives until 2004 when the Council will once more shut itself away behind closed doors in marathon negotiations on a new treaty?
The speech of the foreign minister indicated that this would not be the case.
However, it is important that we tell people today how these points of view will be used and channelled so that we really do achieve a broad debate rather than just empty words.
<P>
I am sorry if we here in Parliament sound like we are nagging, but this is really important for us across group borders.
Just like us, citizens need to know how these points of view will be channelled.
Will it be some kind of convention where those of us who are elected representatives at various levels will really be able to use them to contribute to the design of the new treaty?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=22 NAME="MacCormick">
Mr President, I shall speak with a voice that has not been much heard in this debate so far, despite the two words in Mr Barnier's speech about regional parliaments.
It must be remembered that Europe is not just a Europe of central institutions and Member States.
Within the Member States there are self-governing countries - called, in the parlance of this House, "regions".
Many of their citizens regard themselves as citizens of ancient European nations deserving as much recognition in this Union as others.
Mr Poettering rightly said that the Community method is a good one from the point of view of small states.
Let it also be a good method for small countries that are not, or not yet, Member States of this Union in their own right.
<P>
If, in the debate over the next three years, the voices of the democratically-elected parliaments of the countries and regions of Europe within the Member States are not heard properly and taken as fully into account as the voices of the Member States themselves, the "national" parliaments and - as Mrs Frassoni rightly said - the NGOs, then the debate will have been a failure.
<P>
Subsidiarity is a two-ended concept.
At one end it requires that decisions be taken as close to the people affected as is consistent with efficiency and equity.
But that implies that many decisions can only be taken at the other end, at the higher level, when, for the sake of equity and efficiency, the whole of a great polity must be included.
That great polity will not do well, however, unless it avoids taking power from the little people, the more local levels of government.
The "regions" of Europe must be properly represented in this discussion and proper attention must be paid to subsidiarity.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=23 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Sjöstedt">
Mr President, I have two things to say.
The first concerns the method: I consider it of vital importance that power over the treaties lies with the national parliaments.
If power is passed to the European Parliament, a vital step will be taken towards converting the EU to a state, which I oppose.
I am therefore also sceptical regarding the convention method.
If such a method is to be applied, it must be a convention for the national parliaments who are to discuss the treaty.
<P>
My second point concerns content.
In my opinion it is not sufficient to discuss the points stated in Nice.
Instead, discussion should centre upon democratic reform of the European Union, providing full insight into the legislative work and reducing the power of civil servants, especially within the Commission.
A unique situation currently prevails where civil servants have the deciding influence over the content of legislation, which is a problem in terms of democracy.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=24 LANGUAGE="DA" NAME="Krarup">
Mr President, the European Union has a problem in that, despite the systems it has established and the extensive jargon and impressive rhetoric it makes use of, its people are either indifferent to, or directly opposed to, the integration process that has been on the agenda in recent years.
This is referred to by the polite euphemism of a 'democratic deficit' .
The reason why it is a euphemism or understatement is that the institutions operate in practice in a way that actively contributes to eliminating participation by the people.
It is actively anti-democratic.
Against that background, it is, if anything, absurd to attend today' s debate.
The idea is to establish a democratic dialogue. It sounds so appealing, of course, but this very project reflects a total misunderstanding of the nature of democracy.
Democracy is literally government by the people, which means that the people' s wishes, demands and political views prevail, without direction from above.
<P>
What is now on the agenda is very reminiscent of another union which collapsed a few years ago.
It is the same trend and the same mechanism for development whereby living democracy is dismantled piece by piece in favour of government by an élite.
That must be humiliating for the Swedish Presidency in particular.
What is happening is in direct conflict with the best grassroots traditions in Scandinavia.
Sweden has an unusually pronounced and progressive tradition of transparency and the rule of law, and the Swedes are the people in the European Union who most actively oppose the integration process.
It is a most regrettable situation and a political identity crisis for our Swedish friends.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=25 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Berthu">
Mr President, the debate on the future of the European Union, which was decided at the Nice European Council, will have to avoid one major pitfall: limiting itself to the circle of specialists in European matters, including the members of the institutions of the European Union. That would once again run the risk of couching the issues in a language and code only accessible to the initiated and of finally widening the gap which separates Europe from its people.
<P>
To bring this closed circuit a bit more up to date, certain federalists are proposing a solution which is a mere façade: a convention inspired by the one which has already prepared the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This convention is composed, for the most part, of docile creatures and headed, for more security, by a steering group or a drafting group to lead the debate in the direction the institutions want it to take: towards more federalism.
<P>
This method would be very dangerous.
We should not forget that the previous convention produced the text of a Charter which was unacceptable to all Member States and that it was necessary to mask the differences by proclaiming it a non-compulsory text.
If a future convention worked with the same methods in a rarefied atmosphere, it would produce, in 2004, an ultra-federalist text which would be unacceptable to all or some of the Member States. This would spell disaster for Europe.
<P>
However, neither should we have a debate dominated by confusion and disorder.
We must stay close to the people, move at their speed and stay orderly to stay productive.
That is why, Mr President, we think there is only one viable solution: to organise the debate around national parliaments and under their responsibility.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=26 NAME="Elles">
Mr President, I particularly welcome the efforts of the Commission President, Romano Prodi, to set the contours of this debate, which follows on from our debates in January and February in this House.
Now, it is not the post-Nice debate but the debate on Europe's future.
It is vital that European institutions get this opportunity right.
It is a rare occasion in history where peoples of Europe can potentially have their own say on what a so-called constitutional framework would look like post-2004.
It is now up to Europe's political leadership to set the terms and determine the nature, breadth, substance and intensity of this debate.
<P>
At present there is some imagination but little action, given the extensive nature of Annex IV of the Treaty.
This morning I looked at the website that the President of the Council mentioned.
There is no mention of Parliament participating in the debates on 7 March.
It is simply a web page with no facility for citizens to communicate their own views by e-mail. There is only a skeleton programme which is put on this web page under the Belgian Presidency, who will have a business forum.
It is deeply unimpressive and needs to be looked at immediately.
<P>
So let us look at the future debate. First, its nature.
It needs to be politically led rather than bureaucracies being left to run expensive programmes which will look like propaganda in the view of our citizens.
Perhaps this would be a subject for Stockholm: stimulating heads of state to start debates.
Madam President-in-Office, you have said that this should be something which should be done but in my own country our Prime Minister, Mr Blair, has been curiously silent on this subject.
<P>
Secondly, the breadth.
This needs to be something which will involve all parts of society, as Mr Bonde has said.
You cannot simply preach to the converted as you did in the European School a few days ago.
Thirdly, the substance of the debate: that needs to be considered in terms of papers, broad dialogues and other ideas of this kind.
Lastly there is the intensity of the debate, which needs to be developed with the best technological means available.
<P>
I conclude by saying that in our Parliament we need to network with the national parliaments, the Council needs to give us the lead through the heads of state in each of the Member States and last, the Commission can produce guidelines so that we know what course this debate will follow.
We can then discuss this when we come to ratify the Nice Treaty a little later this year.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=27 LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Seguro">
Mr President, I wish, first of all, to congratulate the Commission on the content of the position that it has adopted here, but I should like to ask Commissioner Barnier a specific question: is the Commission going to content itself with this statement or do you, Mr Barnier, and Mr Prodi intend immediately to visit the governments in order to persuade them to accept your positions?
This is what differentiates a centre for discussion from an institution which is able to implement and make policy.
I would like you to give me a specific answer to this question because, at the time of the Treaty of Nice, the Commission put forward good proposals and good positions, which were then ignored by the Council.
<P>
With regard to the issue that has been raised here of the 'follow-up to Nice' , I wish to express my satisfaction at the agreement that has been reached in terms of the items on the agenda.
The Commission, the Council and the European Parliament have agreed that the four items are inadequate.
As a matter of fact, this is inevitable, because we cannot stimulate a European debate and then restrict the intellectual exercise of extending it to other issues, as the President pointed out.
<P>
Nevertheless, I should like to ask the Swedish Presidency two questions. Firstly, is it prepared to review the date for drafting this Treaty?
I think that 2004 would be the worst year to undertake this exercise, not only for the reasons that Mr Dupuis has just given, but because, instead of uniting the parties in each Member State that is in favour of the European project, the election campaign often divides them.
Therefore, I should like to know if the presidency and the Council are considering this issue of the date.
Lastly, Madam President, neither the Council nor the presidency itself must use the debate as an excuse to do nothing.
It must be an event that leads to some form of action.
My specific question is this: why is the presidency afraid of there being a forum or convention that can make proposals?
We do not want to replace national governments and we do not wish to take decisions - you are the decision makers - but I should like to ask, why are you afraid of our ideas, our proposals and our contribution?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=28 NAME="Duff">
Mr President, why is it that we insist that the specific legitimacy of the European Parliament is recognised in the preparation of the IGC?
This is not simply because of our wounded self-esteem, but because the Member States left to themselves will quickly become obsessed with their own national power relationships.
The common European interest will only be fostered if all those who share executive power - the European Council and also the Commission - collaborate with all those that share legislative power - the European and national parliaments.
A true constitutional step forward will be achieved only if such a pluralistic formula is agreed.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=29 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Voggenhuber">
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake.
Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy.
That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us.
<P>
The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy - and it needs to be said - is the Council' s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution.
The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe' s constitution-writer.
It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens.
The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission.
<P>
Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy.
You were not talking about democracy.
Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate.
Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account.
Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens' access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments.
<P>
Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=30 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Sichrovsky">
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech - it makes a welcome change from the last presidency.
That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal.
The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here.
Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative.
This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber.
<P>
Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=31 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="President">
<SPEAKER ID=32 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Desama">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, taking the floor for the last time before this House, which I will be leaving in a few weeks' time, I would like to address a few words to my fellow Members.
<P>
Of course the problems of the method adopted in the follow-up to Nice are important: the Community method, the Convention method, and so on.
What is even more important, however, is that there is a plan and a driving force to push it forward.
Each time the European Union - and the Economic Community before it - made progress, there was this plan and this driving force: the Spaak committees before the Treaty of Rome, the White Paper produced by Lord Cockfield before the Luxembourg Treaty, the strong proposals made by the Commission and the strength of the France-Germany axis with the Treaty of Maastricht.
<P>
We know that, in the chancelleries, there is no plan and even less political will to move forward. We also know that, despite the very interesting proposals made by Commissioner Barnier, the Commission has neither the strength nor the authority it had ten years ago.
So there remains the European Parliament. Over the years it has proved itself to be the strongest link in the institutional tripod.
I would like to turn to my fellow Members and say that the European Parliament has a majority which transcends political and national divisions. This majority is in favour of a plan for a new European federalism.
We need a federation of projects and a catalysis of energies to take this step forward as is expected of us and which the citizens of Europe expect from you.
<P>
So, comrades, friends, fellow Members, I would like to take my leave of you by saying that I truly expect you to be ambitious and audacious.
That is what the citizens expect from you.
Thank you.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=33 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Caveri">
Mr President, the word 'federalism' risks staying devoid of meaning if we do not make a basic choice.
Yes, we do have to draft a European constitution to avoid ending up with a simple free exchange area after enlargement.
To do that, however, we really must understand subsidiarity, which remains the most important principle of federalism.
I will give an example.
<P>
Under the Italian constitution we have a special regime of autonomy.
On the way towards a necessary European constitution is it not important to involve the regional political level in some way, especially when it represents a linguistic minority?
I ask this question knowing full well that the answer is not easy, but it is nevertheless vital for the democratic future of Europe.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=34 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Cederschiöld">
Mr President, the representative of Parliament in Nice summed up the result as a catastrophe.
It is impossible to understand how one can cold-bloodedly build a future conflict between large and small countries into the treaty. It is even more difficult to understand how the Council can refuse to introduce a reference to the rights which all Member States have previously signed up to.
<P>
How are citizens to understand that their elected representatives do not wish to confirm the rights which they politically pretend to support?
A weak treaty may pose a risk to an expanded EU, which has to combine many different legal traditions.
We want to see higher ambitions when it comes to reaching decisions on who is to do what, who is to decide what and how, and on rights and democracy.
<P>
The debate with the citizens must focus on the central issues of the future in a more flexible Europe.
A democratic convention is required, not merely a website, to create open debate and open decisions.
The presidency gives the impression of seeking to avoid the key issues of the debate on Europe.
This is tantamount to shirking its responsibility to lead Europe.
Seize the opportunity to contribute to a democratic EU with a democratic European Parliament - which I also hope the presidency will show respect for.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=35 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Leinen">
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you used the word strong three times in your speech.
The EU must be a strong force, the Community method must contain strong positions and we need strong institutions. I agree with you wholeheartedly there.
But actions speak louder than words.
As far as the post-Nice agenda is concerned, what you said means more Europe, not less Europe.
It means more integration, not less integration. In other words, the proposals which you make will need to be specified and some will need to be reworded.
<P>
One often has the impression, when it comes to the separation of powers, that forces are at work which seek to weaken Europe.
It is up to you, I think, to say what we want to do together, what we must do together in the 21st century in order to make Europe strong.
Then the debate on the separation of powers will be a completely different debate from what we sometimes hear now.
Strong Community institutions: this issue also needs to be specified.
The issue here, as far as I am concerned, is the application of parliamentary democracy to policy on Europe.
This does not just mean discussing the role and function of the national parliaments, it also means making the European Parliament even stronger.
We have still not been granted a number of rights which we need when it comes to legislating, setting the budget and controlling the Commission.
If we want strong Community institutions, we need to re-examine the Council and the Commission. The Commission should be a sort of government, not just the Council' s secretariat, and the Council should then be seen as a committee with the ability to take decisions.
As far as the method is concerned, you said rather cryptically that the convention has advantages and disadvantages.
I should like to know what the disadvantages are and for whom.
I was a member of the Charter convention. I saw no disadvantages.
I saw only advantages. I therefore call on you to state in your Gothenburg report that the new method will be a new convention to prepare the Intergovernmental Conference.
<P>
One last word on the timetable.
I too think that 2004 is wholly inappropriate.
We can wrap this up by the end of 2003.
A new Treaty of Rome would then perhaps be the right basis for European elections in 2004 and a good basis for completing enlargement.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=36 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Maij-Weggen">
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, never in my career as an MEP, and I have been a Member since 1979, has there been a treaty which leaves one with such a bitter taste as this one.
That is hardly surprising, for whoever takes stock of the chaos which the government leaders created in Nice, is not amazed that all eyes are now fixed on post-Nice. That is, after all, the quickest way to make people forget Nice.
One of the problems is that it has now become impossible to explain to any citizen how vote weighting works, or what the outcome of the Commissioners' rota system is.
Neither is it clear how many MEPs there will be between 2004 and 2009.
Post-Nice is thus not a normal follow-up of Nice, but a harsh necessity to rectify what has gone wrong as soon as possible.
What needs to be done?
The democratic hole which was left as a result of the fact that the European Parliament will not be receiving codecision power on all the topics which will soon be decided on by qualified majority, must be filled at the earliest opportunity.
In actual fact, we should already be reaching an interinstitutional agreement on this.
It is disgraceful that power has been removed from the national parliaments and has subsequently not been transferred to the European Parliament.
<P>
Secondly, there should be a fair distribution of national and European powers, which must be laid down in a European constitution. The latter should also include the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
I happen to share Mrs Lynne' s opinion that the document is sound.
<P>
Thirdly, the current IGC procedure must be replaced by an interinstitutional convention which is capable of preparing these actions.
The damage which Nice has done must be repaired before the next European elections, in other words by 2003, for we cannot afford to carry this burden into those elections in 2004.
<P>
Finally, Madam President, you mentioned citizens.
But do you realise that in the three-way discussion on this notorious regulation on access to documents, we constantly meet with a Council in full body armour, which does not give an inch and which is causing us the greatest of difficulty?
Madam President, Mrs Lynne mentioned the word 'strong' .
There must have been eleven socialist governments in Nice.
Well, they were anything but strong on the day. Let us not beat about the bush.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=37 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Berès">
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I entreat all of you: let us stop talking about the follow-up to Nice and talk instead about the future.
Let us look towards the future.
I would also like to correct an oversight this morning. Before we look to the future let us wind up the past.
Let us invite the Member States to ratify Nice as soon as possible. This is essential if we want to clear the air for the debate.
<P>
As I look towards the future I am convinced about one thing. The leap forward we are expecting will come from public opinion, from the debate, but first and foremost from young people.
It is to them that the Europe of the future belongs. It is not enough, however, to say: the debate, the debate, the debate.
You are right, Commissioner: we must organise it and structure it.
<P>
To guide this debate, I think that at some point we must ask ourselves about the usefulness of a questionnaire.
By the same token, we must use all the available forums for this debate, while being aware that none of them, be it national conferences, consultations with unions, forums of civil societies, will have the power to arrive at a conclusion. For, pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty, the conclusion belongs to the Heads of State and Government.
Let us take note of this.
Between these two stages, though, what will revive hope within Europe is nevertheless the adventure of the convention, which is no longer that adventurous. The experience of the Charter demonstrated this.
<P>
I believe it was Mr Poettering who asked a question about a parallel process between the public debate and the convention.
It seems to us that the correct formula is that of a broad, open debate, which will take place as soon as possible. When the convention starts its work, the debate will continue in parallel in order to draw the necessary lessons from the experience of the convention.
<P>
And then this Parliament will agree to consult all the wise men on earth and to participate in all the forums.
In the final analysis, however, it is the representatives of democracy who will have to participate in this convention.
<P>
One last word, Mr President.
The Council was courageous enough to invent the convention. We ask it to show the same courage and look to the future with confidence.
Our citizens expect this. Our fellow Member, Claude Desama, has invited us to take part in constructing a new federalism and we should accept this invitation.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=38 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Rack">
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe.
"The future is at stake" is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective.
Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method.
<P>
With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark.
I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier.
Do we want a more or a less political Europe?
How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions?
How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution?
I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions.
Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address.
<P>
May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School?
Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament?
Some answers please.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=39 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Martin, Hans-Peter">
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have a reputation, not without reason, for being extraordinarily skilful, and your presentation has confirmed this.
You have come here and flattered us, spoken of important contributions by the European Parliament in the past, found the relevant debates interesting and exciting and we thank you for your compliments.
But how do they fit in with the facts?
You were in Nice.
What does the real future look like on paper?
<P>
The loser at Nice was the European Parliament.
Instead of at least more transparency, we ended up with less democracy.
We now have a Europe which looks like the late Habsburg empire in the 19th century.
Then, the large landowners had all the votes, now it is the countries. And everything is obscure.
<P>
Now you talk of an open attitude to future procedures.
Since I started working here as an elected representative of the people and before that during my work as a journalist, I have always wondered exactly what the people in power are thinking when they talk like you do and when they act like you do in the Council.
What is it you really want?
What is it you stand for?
In school I was told that it was Parliament' s job to control and the government' s job to react.
Where exactly are you reacting?
<P>
We knew where we stood with Konrad Adenauer, with François Mitterand and even with Helmut Kohl when it came to Europe.
Where do we stand with the Council?
Why do you not just say that, at the end of the day, you want a seriously democratic and transparent Europe, come what may?
Do you really find it so hard to shoulder responsibility in front of your voters?
What is wrong with Sweden?
We admire your country - I personally am a great fan of your political transparency, but I am fast losing heart when it comes to these crucial issues regarding the future.
<P>
If, rather than lead, you merely lead astray, and up the wrong garden path at that, i.e. up the national path which hankers after the past rather than down the glorious path which will take us forward, then you run the risk of going down in history as the gravedigger of Europe, because you could not and would not explain to your citizens that the European Union plays an indispensable role in the age of globalisation and that this European Union is therefore in dire need of radical democratisation and practical application of the principle of subsidiarity.
<P>
I trust that Sweden will yet dare to act.
Leave flattery and diplomatic skills behind you and profess your faith in the separation of powers and a European constitution.
I am relying on your ambition.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=40 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Lindh">
Mr President, I would like to begin by presenting my thanks for a good debate with many constructive contributions.
I seem to have noticed that Mr Poettering, Mr Barón Crespo, Mr Cox and others who have taken part in the debate are still in favour of a broad political debate on issues of both content and form, and I think this is good.
<P>
I would like to comment on some of the contributions and begin with the first speaker, Mr Poettering.
I repeat: Openness and access are a key issue for the Swedish Presidency.
I know that Parliament and the Swedish Presidency have a great deal in common in this respect and I hope that we will be able to help each other to achieve as much openness and access as possible.
Naturally, we also need to carry the Member States with us and agree on this.
<P>
Then there is the major question of the next Intergovernmental Conference. When it comes to the decision itself, according to the Treaty there is no method other than the Intergovernmental Conference.
It is important that we remember this, just as Mrs Berès said just now.
I understand that Parliament is very interested, as I am, in the important discussion on how we will reach a decision - the debate we will have before the decision, how we will prepare for the debate, and the role which might be played by the convention method.
These issues were addressed by the initial speakers.
<P>
The discussion in Parliament shows that we must have a broad debate on these matters, but I think it is too early today to reach a definite position as there are both advantages and disadvantages.
<P>
The advantages are clear - an open debate and broad participation - but here too questions can be raised.
Who is to be involved - Member States, candidate countries and organisations, and if so, which?
We cannot reach a final position on this today.
<P>
Some have also put forward the disadvantages. With very many participants, the process can become unwieldy.
Furthermore, the decision-making process itself can be unclear, as the convention submits proposals and the Intergovernmental Conference has to reach decisions.
Even if one advocates a convention, one must also discuss dealing with its disadvantages.
We should therefore discuss this properly and in detail.
<P>
The Council has not said yes but nor has the Council objected, and we have definitely not said that we are afraid of a convention.
We have said that we must now be able to discuss both the factual issues surrounding the future of Europe and the methods - including the question of a convention.
<P>
Just as Mr Brok and others said, the European Parliament is naturally involved in this entire debate.
You played a part in initiating the debate on the future.
You played a part in the launch and you are also among those participating in the website.
I do not know exactly where Mr Elles has been looking, but I can guarantee that Parliament is represented.
Furthermore, there are lots of contributions, so if Parliament was not represented there today, it can only be an oversight.
<P>
This debate is a further example of Parliament' s being involved, but we would also like to see the view of Parliament as a whole on the debate on the future, and we will get that in May.
Therefore, I think it is important that this also be included as part of the on-going discussion.
<P>
Let me now comment on some other issues.
Mr Cox wondered why I said that the Treaties should be simplified without changing the content.
I reply that I was quoting the Nice Decision.
<P>
To Mr Barón Crespo I would like to say that it is clear that we must go out into the real world.
I myself have taken the debate to many Swedish schools.
I presume that you others too have also visited schools.
I think it is important that, here too, Parliament is really involved in the debate on content.
What schoolchildren and the general public will ask us will naturally be questions which are very much wider in scope than those we have discussed here today.
I would also like to say to Mr Barón Crespo that of course Parliament was invited to take part in launching the future of Europe right from the start.
<P>
To Mrs Frassoni I would like to say that when it comes to the question on civil society, there must unfortunately have been some problem with the translation, for the Swedish Presidency has exhibited a very great interest in civil society.
In my introductory speech, I cited examples of major conferences we are organising in Sweden and in other countries. Ahead of the summit in Gothenburg we are organising three broad forums arranged by civil society.
We are also working on town twinning to a great extent and are doing a great deal of work at many schools and universities.
I personally have several school classes as reference groups, which I can recommend, by the way.
<P>
Mr Bonde brought up the subject of the website and said that only Prime Minister Persson and other high-up figures are allowed to write on it.
I recommend that he go and look at it as there are already many contributions there.
Among other things in my introductory speech, I quoted contributions from Denmark and the UK - opinions of ordinary citizens in both countries.
<P>
This is naturally an important debate for the future.
I expect we will return to the discussion of the methods and the convention and how we can best broaden the debate.
But it is also important that we have a broad debate on the factual issues, i.e. on how Europe really will be able to address globalisation and on how Europe can become a strong force on employment, environmental issues and the matters we will be discussing later today.
So when it comes to the future of Europe, let us discuss both methods and substance.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=41 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Barnier">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with thanks to each and every one of you, I would like at this stage to comment briefly on a few specific questions put by a number of you. As for the rest, I can only confirm on behalf of President Prodi, and on my own personal behalf, that the Commission will continue to work intelligently and in close cooperation with the European Parliament during this rather sensitive period of the debate on the future of Europe, as Mrs Berès said.
And that is what counts.
<P>
Mrs Lindh has just said a few words about the website, which several of you have mentioned, most notably James Elles and Mrs Malmström.
This site is going through a running-in phase so please show a little understanding.
It was opened barely a week ago.
I think all your comments will help us to turn it into a real website for the people.
Furthermore, our idea is to share the management of this site amongst several institutions, including the European Parliament, but I admit that we must push it forwards and perhaps also understand its role better, as it must be used as a platform for the national debates which will soon be organised in each Member State.
That is my first reply, but this site must be improved and the Commission will make a contribution to make this happen.
<P>
Mr Seguro asked a question of the President of the Commission and the Commissioner.
Yes, Mr Seguro, we are going to continue to meet with the governments in each of the capitals not only of the Member States but, as Mr Prodi has done, as each of us does, the capitals of the candidate countries too. This is the role of the President, which he carries out not only with regard to the debate on the future of Europe, but on many other subjects as well.
I would add that we will also continue to meet with national parliaments, which has not been normal practice for the Commission up till now.
In the context of the debates in the run-up to Nice, I personally was concerned to meet with national parliaments and, quite frankly, I do not regret it at all.
<P>
Mr Leinen mentioned, as did Mr Dupuis, the concern we expressed through our President that 2004 will be an extremely busy year. It is the year in which we will table the new post-Berlin agenda.
It is the year in which many accession negotiations will be concluded, if this has not already happened. It is the year of the renewal of the European Parliament and it is also the final year of this Commission.
So the sooner we can move, at the start of 2004 and perhaps, Mr Leinen, why not in Rome at the end of 2003, the better it will be for everybody, for us and for you, and so necessarily for the European debate itself. The answer to that, however, is also in the hands of the Heads of State and Government.
<P>
I would like to thank each and every one of you, especially the group chairpersons who expressed their desires and their agreement with the ideas or the guidelines of the Commission.
We will continue to work together.
Please allow me to say a final personal word of thanks to Mr Desama at this moving time when he is about to leave this House to take up more local responsibilities in Verviers.
I am sure he will not forget the profession of European faith he has carried out here when he assumes his role of Lord Mayor in the weeks to come.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=42 NAME="President">
<SPEAKER ID=43 NAME="Cox">
<SPEAKER ID=44 NAME="Elles">
Mr President, I wanted to identify the website that I had visited this morning just before this debate.
I can assure the President-in-Office of the Council that the name of the representative of the European Parliament on 7 March is not mentioned in the English version.
I would be grateful therefore if you could align that with the Swedish version which is presumably up-to-date as you told us this morning.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=45 NAME="President">
<CHAPTER ID=2>
Preparatory work for the Stockholm European Council (23/24 March 2001)
<SPEAKER ID=46 NAME="President">
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the preparatory work for the Stockholm European Council on 23 and 24 March 2001.
<P>
I shall now give the floor to the President-in-Office of the Council, Mrs Lindh.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=47 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Lindh">
Madam President, we have just discussed the future of Europe.
It is really a new Europe, a new Union, which is in the process of being formed.
The greatest change is naturally expansion - the EU is now forging a path for the historic reunification of Europe.
Furthermore, we have just begun the debate on the future and are asking the question of what kind of Europe we want.
<P>
Now, however, we will be discussing the third large process of change, namely the modernisation of the European model, in which the European Council in Stockholm on 23 - 24 March will play a central role. It is about full employment within the EU.
It is about quality of work and lifelong learning. It is about social and economic reforms.
<P>
Last year in Lisbon, the Union made an historic choice in addressing these questions. They are vital to the citizens and thus also for the political legitimacy of the Union.
14 million people in Europe are still unemployed - a gigantic waste of financial resources and an insult to human knowledge and ambitions.
Having a job and being able to earn a living creates a feeling of participation, security and dignity, while unemployment leads to uncertainty, exclusion and xenophobia.
<P>
The road to full employment and increased competitiveness encompasses financial and social reforms such as increased education and lifelong learning, greater equality and modernised social security, strong welfare and quality at work.
It demands open and functioning markets, a healthy macroeconomic policy and a commercial climate which facilitates investment and the establishment of new businesses, especially within growing areas such as IT and biotechnology.
<P>
We need a balance between social and economic reforms.
All these areas are dependent on each other if the Union is to achieve its high targets by 2010: creating the world' s leading knowledge-based economy, creating 20 million new jobs and combining competitiveness and greater social cohesion.
<P>
The meeting of the European Council in Stockholm is the first in a series of summits this spring in which we will openly and self-critically asses the progress which has been made and make new strides.
The work will be carried out both with community law and the new open coordination method.
It is important to focus our measures within the framework of the Lisbon Process, something emphasised by many people in Parliament.
We must not undermine this process by adding far too many new questions.
We do not need any new processes. Instead, we should point out certain prioritised areas.
<P>
In Stockholm, we will firstly further reinforce the ambitious employment targets of 70% of the entire labour force and 60% of women by 2010.
We should consider setting up targets for as early as 2005 and add special targets for the employment of the elderly, a group with enormous potential - only 38% of those aged 55 - 64 are currently in work.
As people are living longer and longer and becoming even healthier, many older people feel unwelcome in the labour market - this situation is slightly absurd.
We will seek to establish a number of important social objectives for equal opportunities, diversity and participation in the workplace.
"Quality of work" - developing quality in working life - is both a welfare issue and the best way of making use of the capacity of employees.
We will seek to confirm the central role of lifelong learning, both for individual development and for European competitiveness, and invite the Commission to also draw up objectives for lifelong learning.
<P>
Secondly in Stockholm, we expect that important strides will be made in terms of modernising the European economy.
We will seek to forge ahead with the reform of the financial markets and achieve a common market for financial services by 2005 at the latest and for risk capital by 2003 at the latest.
Achieving this, as Baron Lamfalussy points out in his report, requires a more efficient decision-making process.
We hope that agreement on this will be achieved at the summit.
<P>
We also need to continue work on opening up the electricity, gas and postal markets, as well as rail and air traffic.
Opening up product and capital markets is not just an aim in itself.
We are not only doing this for the sake of growth and increased employment, but also because it is good for consumers.
It means lower prices and a wider range and better quality of goods and services.
In this context, external trade policy is also important - free and fair world trade is in the interest of European consumers.
<P>
Thirdly in Stockholm, we must address the demographic development of Europe.
Low birth rates and an increasing proportion of elderly people threaten to greatly increase the support burden for those of working age from around 2010 onwards.
We therefore need a wider-ranging overview of pension systems and a discussion of the design of childcare and possibly also health care and care of the elderly.
The social insurance systems must make it easier for people to combine work and family life.
We also need measures for increased participation in the labour market, greater equality and lifelong learning, to address the demographic challenges.
<P>
Fourthly in Stockholm, we should facilitate new technology with the aim of creating growth and improving the lives of citizens.
We want to develop the opportunity for creating better drugs with the help of biotechnology, naturally taking moral and ethical dimensions into account.
We want to develop eEurope and combat the digital divide so that IT benefits everyone.
Talking of the previous debate, I can state that it is the Commission which is responsible for the website.
You can therefore contact them with your comments.
<P>
Fifthly in Stockholm, we must include the ecological point of view which was lacking in the Lisbon strategy and build a bridge to the summit in Gothenburg.
We would like environmentally-friendly technology to also be seen as an important factor for growth and employment, and we would highlight the importance of the efficient use of resources.
The Councils of Ministers are now investigating how the candidate countries can be linked to this process on all these issues.
<P>
I would also like to emphasise the importance of the successful development of Economic and Monetary Union.
In its presidency, Sweden will actively work to ensure that the introduction of euro notes and coins, which is to take place in the currency union in early 2002, is an unqualified success.
This is in our common interest.
<P>
I would also like to state that President Putin of Russia will visit Stockholm in connection with the summit on 23 March for an informal working lunch with the Heads of State and Heads of Government of the EU.
We assume that the discussion will primarily focus on financial and social issues.
<P>
As usual, the European Council will also discuss current issues in foreign policy, such as the Middle East, the western Balkans and the Korean peninsula.
<P>
Madam President, employment and welfare are the most important issues for the citizens of Europe.
If we fail, we face, besides increasing unemployment, xenophobia and greater divisions in society, a crisis of confidence in the Union.
The Lisbon Process is therefore a prerequisite, not only for sustainable growth, full employment and social cohesion in Europe, but also for confidence in European cooperation.
<P>
The European Parliament has constantly been a driving force in all these issues and, through its combination of a popular mandate and Europe-wide responsibility, will also play a central role in the work for the future.
I look forward to hearing your opinions.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=48 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Prodi">
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by congratulating the presidency on the excellent work it has done in preparing for next week's summit in Stockholm.
As has been announced, the presidency has even organised a meeting between European Union leaders and President Putin, on similar lines to the meeting planned with President Bush at Gothenburg in June.
This will be an excellent opportunity to review the main aspects of our partnership with Russia and our partnership with the United States as well.
In particular, I hope we will be able to take stock of the progress of Russia's economic reform programme and improvements in the investment climate that are vital for the success of our energy dialogue and our dialogue on all issues, including matters of citizens' rights, extremely serious issues that we are to discuss.
<P>
The second topic I want to focus briefly on today is the Commission's 'Spring Report' .
When I stood before this House just a year ago, it was to present to you the Commission's contribution to the Lisbon Summit.
What the Commission proposed at Lisbon was a detailed strategy for making Europe dynamic and competitive, while, at the same time, promoting social inclusion and solidarity: a strategy for ensuring that economic progress and social progress in Europe go hand in hand.
The outcome of that summit was very positive: the Member States unanimously adopted almost all the Commission's proposals.
<P>
The strategy adopted at Lisbon is important in two ways.
Firstly, it is an integrated strategy; far from there being tension between the social and economic agendas, they actually support each other. Secondly, it sets specific tasks for the different players to carry out within specific time frames.
<P>
Responsibilities and targets are therefore clear and we will be able to measure our progress clearly.
<P>
The Lisbon strategy is designed for a ten year period, and progress is to be assessed annually at the Spring European Council.
As a basis for this assessment, the Commission will produce an annual progress report (known as the 'Synthesis Report' ), which I shall present to this House every year at about this time.
It will become the Commission's key instrument for coordinating social and economic policy.
If the Gothenburg European Council agrees, we shall add an environmental dimension, giving Europe an overall strategy for sustainable development.
<P>
The synthesis report will outline our successes since Lisbon, but also identify areas where swifter and more determined action is needed over the next twelve months.
Among the initial successes I am particularly pleased with this year are the adoption of the Social Agenda at Nice, the endorsement of a strategy on social exclusion, and our progress in combating discrimination and ensuring equal opportunities.
These successes should give us great satisfaction and this year's report records them, although it touches only lightly on these particular issues, for we must concentrate on the areas where progress is not satisfactory.
<P>
Our report this year highlights ten areas where progress has been unsatisfactory and fresh or greater impetus needs to be given.
Sometimes this is because Member States have been dragging their feet - it has to be said - lacking a sense of urgency or political will, or both. Sometimes it is because circumstances have changed and a new scenario confronts us.
Our report therefore makes very specific recommendations, and at Stockholm I shall make every endeavour to urge the Member States to follow them.
Moreover, these are commitments that these States have made and therefore European leaders need to deliver on them. Two examples are the Community patent and the GALILEO programme.
<P>
Let me say just a little more about these two issues, which I consider to be particularly important. Firstly: the Community patent.
There is an urgent need for a single patent that is legally valid throughout the EU, and there should be a single jurisdiction. This would cut business costs, encourage innovation and provide a clear legal framework for settling disputes.
Industry and science are clamouring for it, as it will boost competitiveness and employment - especially in the new sectors we need most.
The Lisbon and Feira European Councils recommended that the Community Patent should be available by the end of 2001.
I repeat: the Lisbon and Feira Councils called for this.
The Commission tabled its proposal last autumn, but the Council has been unable to reach agreement on it as we saw again just this week at the Internal Market Council and this can only be alarming. Above all, we cannot continue to hold Councils where, even in cases in which a majority vote is acceptable, unanimity is strived for and the adoption of proposals deferred.
The Member States must act consistently and show a greater sense of responsibility if this project is to succeed.
<P>
Secondly: the GALILEO programme.
The Kosovo war showed only too clearly Europe's total dependence on the American GPS satellite navigation system.
If this is switched off for military reasons, European businesses are forced to suspend many of their operations and there are a number of other examples.
Now then, the GALILEO project offers an alternative that would make Europe self-sufficient in satellite navigation signals for all civilian, military and scientific purposes.
It is an opportunity we simply cannot afford to miss.
It would take only a modest injection of public funds to trigger massive private investment, although I recognise that this private sector participation has yet to be explored in depth, as some governments have been requesting and as, moreover, we undertook to do.
This project, which I see many countries almost do not want to be involved with, could generate more than 100 000 high-level scientific jobs.
I therefore urge this House and the Council to come to an agreement very soon on the next stage of development of this important project. The Commission, for its part, will display the necessary flexibility as regards the participation of private capital.
<P>
Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to expand on one of the ten priority areas we identified.
I will not go into the whole caboodle, to coin a phrase, just the last point: 'Effective social protection for an ageing population' .
I have picked this topic because it is particularly close to my heart and because it has huge scope; because it has far-reaching implications for all our policies and because it will take us from Stockholm to Gothenburg, which means sustainable development; and because it is an issue that will stay with us for many years to come.
The Lisbon agenda is set against the background of a major challenge: our ageing population.
I am happy to say that Europeans are living longer, but they are also having fewer children and working less.
In the European Union, at present, for every person of 65 or over there are four people of working age. In 20 years' time, there will be only three and in 40 years' time only two potential workers to every pensioner.
These are the actual data, given that those who have not been born cannot be born in the future: these are the current demographic statistics.
<P>
This also applies to almost all the candidate countries as well as the Member States.
In other words, a shrinking workforce will have to support a rapidly growing number of non-working people even in the enlarged European Union.
These are stark, statistical facts that we have to take into consideration.
Do we want Europe to remain a fair, caring society, which is our goal?
Do we want our children and grandchildren to enjoy the kind of social security we have come to expect?
Then we must modernise our welfare and pension systems, making them sustainable in the long term.
We need a strategy for consolidating Europe's long-term competitiveness without giving up the social inclusion that characterises our societies.
I want Europe to be not only the most competitive region in the world, but also the region with the highest level of social inclusion.
<P>
The post-war era has brought unprecedented prosperity to all the States of European society.
Today, our societies are - on average - the wealthiest in history.
At the same time, well-developed welfare and pension systems have distributed our wealth so as to ensure a minimum of social justice: not the level we had hoped for but still a minimum level of social justice.
<P>
However, these systems were built on the criteria of expanding or at least stable populations.
Now that our working population is shrinking, we are facing a potential structural crisis in the distribution of wealth, a crisis that could, in the space of a few decades, severely undermine the European Union's competitiveness, Economic and Monetary Union and our social model, given that our objective is to preserve a sound social protection model.
We must therefore take action now. We need to develop a long-term policy mix and start to think very hard about what sort of social justice and intergenerational equity we want, and what our political criteria for achieving it should be.
<P>
Social protection systems are, of course, a national responsibility, and, I would stress, it is primarily up to the Member States - not the European Union institutions - to bring about the necessary reforms.
There are, however, four key areas where we have to develop appropriate strategies. They are intergenerational equity, distribution of work, social and family policy and immigration.
Although the national governments are free to act autonomously in these matters, we must give thought to their development here.
<P>
Firstly: intergenerational equity.
The ageing of our societies is placing a substantial extra financial burden on certain generations.
If no adjustments are made, today's younger generation will have to pay not only for their parents' and grandparents' retirement pensions but also for their own, because by the time they retire the pension system will have become unworkable.
If adjustments are not made to take full account of the demographic factor, parts of today's adult generation could fall into poverty.
<P>
Secondly: the distribution of work.
Not everyone of working age actually works.
Quite apart from the difficulties preventing young people from entering the labour market early enough, there is a trend towards early retirement that shortens people's working lives by 10 years or more.
This aggravates the long-term strain on the pension systems.
Moreover, as of about 2007, our workforce could be too small to meet our economic needs.
We shall be facing a labour shortage in the Union.
<P>
In future, therefore, all generations will have to work longer. We need to keep older people active in the economy, at least part time.
We must ensure they have the skills needed for types of work that may be new to them. Therefore - and this is our duty - we shall urge the Member States to invest much more in education and training for young and old alike.
Lifelong learning is essential in order to update people's skills constantly and enable them to adapt to change.
This policy should help ease labour shortages, improve intergenerational equity and give the citizens a more satisfying old age.
<P>
Thirdly: social and family policy: There are far too few women in work.
The employment rate for women is only just over 70% of the employment rate for men.
In its report for Stockholm, the Commission urges the Member States to make it easier for women to enter or re-enter the labour market.
Women must, of course, be given the same job opportunities, working conditions and pension schemes as men, and we must make it easier for both sexes to reconcile work and family life, especially if we want to encourage people to have children.
In short, we need to take ever better care of our increasingly depleted human resources.
<P>
Fourthly and lastly: immigration.
Bringing young people with the right skills into the European Union is another way to increase the size of our workforce. We have a frontier-free, Europe-wide labour market: we urgently need a Europe-wide immigration policy to match.
The basis for this policy should be the 'shared assessment of the economic and demographic developments within the Union' which the Tampere European Council called for.
Last November, the Commission issued a communication on this subject, and I hope that this House and the Council will examine it as soon as possible.
<P>
Madam President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I said just now that pensions and social protection systems are essentially national responsibilities and that it is for the Member States to bring about the necessary reforms.
Nevertheless, the European Union, and the Commission in particular, does have a responsibility in this field.
To conclude my speech, let me therefore outline what the Commission is doing to provide adequate responses to the problems linked to the ageing population.
<P>
One of the great successes of Lisbon was that the Member States agreed, for the first time, to coordinate their action on welfare reform, exchanging experiences and best practices.
This process must be enhanced.
They also mandated the High Level Working Party on Social Protection to study the sustainability of social protection and, in particular, of pension systems, on the basis of a Commission communication.
Thus, welfare reform is part of the Lisbon agenda and the Commission is playing its part.
It will make clear the true scale of the demographic problem so that the European public can understand it.
<P>
In the first place, our public finance accounting systems do not give a true picture at present.
We need to develop indicators that show the long-term implications of our social spending and tax decisions, in particular with regard to pensions.
<P>
Secondly, we need to bring the single market fully into play with regard to pensions.
At present, unlike insurance, pension funds are not covered by a European Union legal framework.
However, the Commission is fully committed to bringing the single market into full play here.
We have already tabled a proposal for a directive and I hope the Council will act swiftly on it.
This directive forms part of our Financial Services Action Plan that the European Council agreed should be implemented within five years.
I urge this House and the Council to speed up their work on this plan.
<P>
A properly regulated, pan-European pension fund market will increase the mobility of workers and pensioners and give them better value for money.
At present, pension provision is unnecessarily expensive, and this is a waste we can no longer afford.
Pension schemes must therefore be made fully portable within the European Union.
At Stockholm, Member States will have to sweep away the tax barriers that obstruct the cross-border payment of pension contributions and the cross-border management of pension funds.
We are not talking about a tax revolution here: this is a matter of an extremely sensible adjustment, to which the citizens have every right.
Coordination of national tax systems is essential here, and the Commission will be tabling its proposals.
<P>
Thirdly, it is vital that we address the effects of ageing on public finances.
The effects of ageing on our social systems must reinforce our commitment to reducing public debt.
The interest saved must be used to support pensions and healthcare.
This is a matter of social justice, and the Commission's Synthesis Report will urge the Member States to continue the reforms already under way along these lines.
The citizens need time to make provision for their old age. Action is required now to prevent social systems from losing public credibility.
<P>
Fourthly and lastly, we need to incorporate the long-term sustainability aspect of public finances into Economic and Monetary Union.
The current 'close to balance' rule in the EMU Stability and Growth Pact has done a great service to the cause of safe pensions.
We must acknowledge this fact and be proud of it, but the long-term sustainability of public finances is not included in the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact.
Imagine, for example, that a particular Member State is currently running balanced budgets but that its spending programmes will mean increasing deficits and debt within the next ten years.
In a situation of this kind, the European Union can do nothing to induce that country to change course because the European Union does not possess the necessary instruments, nor does it possess the instruments to influence the quality of the adjustments undertaken, yet that country's chances of long-term success basically depend on their getting the adjustments right today.
This was less important in the run-up to EMU, where action had to be taken in the short to medium term, but the ageing of our population makes long-term action on public finances essential.
<P>
What we need, therefore, is a renewed commitment to maintaining stable public finances that can sustain social protection in the longer term.
Indeed, sound public finances must be an integral part of the strategy for sustainable development in Europe.
The Commission will be proposing just such a strategy, and it will be the main subject of the Gothenburg Summit in June.
<P>
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the subject I have chosen to raise in this House today is a difficult and technical one, but it is crucial for the prosperity of future generations in Europe.
There is not, and there never will be, one single model of social inclusion in Europe. Each Member State will make its own choice, reflecting its own traditions, culture and the will of its people.
Nevertheless, we have to establish an overall framework, and this can only be done at European Union level.
This House is, of course, the European institution where the democratic debates on the fundamental aspects of our fellow citizens' future have to take place.
Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, my Commission is ready to fully play its part together with you.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=49 NAME="Suominen">
Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the target the Union set itself a year ago in Lisbon to become the world' s most competitive and dynamic economic area, which could achieve both sustainable growth and create new and better jobs, and greater social cohesion, hardly lacks ambition.
There may be unanimity regarding the aim; there are, however, clear political differences when it comes to the choice of remedies and how they are prioritised.
<P>
We, the Group of the European People' s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, would like to emphasise that the following are some of the most important ways of fulfilling this aim: full implementation of the Single Market, the speedy liberalisation of monopolies, such as the electricity and gas boards and the Post Office, and opening up public procurement to genuine competition, without letting the question of local employment blur the issue.
We would like to stress that employment targets will be achieved by encouraging entrepreneurship, SMEs being the most significant employers.
We would like to stress that excessive regulation, too much faith in the omnipotence of legislation, and burdensome taxation are the worst enemies of employment.
We would also like to emphasise that an innovative and information-based economy, in which everyone is given equal opportunities and individuals are given the right to get ahead and live their lives according to their own goals, means making the European labour markets a lot more flexible.
It is this very lack of flexibility that separates us from the efficient US economy.
Another way of increasing efficiency is to strengthen our educational systems by making them more adaptable to the needs of individuals.
We must have educational establishments maintained by the state, but we also need private ones so that a competition situation may develop, based both on the students and the choice of different educational approaches.
In our opinion, modernising the European social model must be made to move up a gear by making it less dependent on publicly financed collective solutions that aim to maintain social cohesion.
<P>
If we want to become the world' s best economy, we have to ask ourselves a few questions.
Has the US economy grown as a result of restrictions there, over-taxation, legislation introduced with the apparent aim of giving protection, artificially preserving unproductive jobs, restricting competition or seeking to increase federal bureaucracy?
Not at all; just the opposite, in fact!
Have Sweden, and Finland too, seen success as IT countries in Europe and achieved peak growth because they have imposed more and more regulation? No.
It is because for just over a decade both countries have invested in training and research and their conservative governments reduced the hold the state had on the economy.
Has Ireland succeeded through regulation?
No, it has deregulated and supported external investments by means of tax concessions, doing so well that we even have to give it a telling off for its success.
The remedies for improved employment levels are simple. They are those I have mentioned, and not the well-intentioned but ineffective remedies of guardianship, control, and planning, which our socialist friends so greatly favour.
<P>
In the run-up to the Stockholm meeting Parliament must, however, voice a concern to the Commission and the Council.
The gulf between the targets set and the measures taken to implement them is widening on a daily basis, although there are certainly differences between the various countries.
The Council must achieve results quickly in its continued programme of liberalisation and improving the business climate, especially now that we are clearly headed for a period of uncertainty, with the USA in the lead, as prices on the stock markets fall and confidence weakens in companies and amongst consumers.
If confidence goes, the strong economy goes too, and who will then give us guarantees of better jobs, better education and greater social cohesion?
<P>
The Lisbon process is not the only one which has seen a hiccup in the European machine.
Although the decisions taken at Tampere on a common security area have remained in the background in the debate, their implementation has been just as slow, if not slower, than the Lisbon process.
If we do not effectively prevent crime there cannot even be a real Single Market or Schengen area.
A viable Single Market also requires, to mention just one detail, a viable, effective and safe air traffic system.
At the moment, two countries, Spain and Britain, could torpedo efforts to achieve air safety and increased efficiency by squabbling over the insignificant airport at Gibraltar. It is hard to believe that the same countries are advising how to solve the Balkan crisis or the situation that has flared up in the Middle East.
<P>
I would also like to thank - as Mr Poettering did - Mrs Lindh for her very constructive approach to the Stockholm meeting. I might even say you are welcome to join our group when your ministerial term has finished, as what you said was so much to our liking.
And now I will switch to the other official language of Finland, and say: Mrs Lindh, actual measures are what we need, and not just talk about objectives.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=50 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Goebbels">
<SPEAKER ID=51 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Gasòliba i Böhm">
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, representatives of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in making an assessment of the observable results during the first year of implementation of the Lisbon agreements, we reach very limited conclusions.
Lisbon established a process to run throughout this decade aimed at turning the European economy into the most competitive, best trained, and most socially balanced economy in the world. However, we note that, at least at the end of this first year, which takes us from Lisbon to Stockholm, there are very few tangible results.
<P>
We are not satisfied.
We believe that, although the objectives were clearly established, we have neither made quick enough progress on the process of liberalisation, which should improve competition between markets, nor have we implemented the structural reforms necessary to better equip the infrastructures. Nor have we implemented the instruments necessary to become more competitive and to bring us into line, particularly with the United States, in terms of levels of training in areas in which we have the greatest advantage, that is to say technological development and scientific research.
<P>
We believe that we have to proceed much more quickly in these areas and we wish to focus on three fundamental questions which I will try to summarise in my few remaining seconds.
Firstly, structural reforms and liberalisation.
Secondly, incorporation and interest on the part of the private sector in the fields of high quality education and training.
Thirdly, a significant reform of the labour market which, on the one hand, will promote the incorporation of workers and the least-favoured groups into the labour market and, on the other, will provide greater and better mobility in employment within the European Union.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=52 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Jonckheer">
Mr President, Minister, President of the Commission, I would just like to make a few brief comments on the Lisbon European Council and on the resolution we have just signed on behalf of the group, without a great deal of enthusiasm it must be said.
<P>
Mr Prodi, I should like to address the following comments to you.
It is clear that in Lisbon the European Union set itself a very ambitious objective, that of achieving a competitive economy.
We support this project but we would like to draw your attention to the needs of our citizens.
A genuine project for the 21st century must take on board the real needs of our citizens.
I read in a newspaper yesterday that the mobile telephone market has reached saturation point with approximately 50 to 60 million surplus mobile telephones.
Yet, in the European Union, not every citizen has the possibility of finding decent housing.
Meeting the needs of our citizens is therefore crucial.
In this respect, we also support the idea of environmental indicators and we deplore the fact that we will have to wait until the Barcelona European Council in 2002 before we actually have an integrated strategy.
We wish your communication on sustainable development every success but we would like matters to proceed more quickly.
<P>
My second comment is about the instruments. Liberalising sectors is good but it must go hand in hand with obligations to provide services of general interest.
From this perspective, and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity, we support the idea of the European Union having a framework directive on its obligations to provide public services of general interest, which is not the case at the moment.
<P>
I would like to make one final comment on the public finances you mentioned. I would ask you to pay attention, in the development of public spending, to the fact that there are perfectly legitimate areas of public spending, such as investment and education, which are sine qua non conditions if we want to meet the future challenges of society.
The role of public authorities and public spending is therefore of paramount importance within the context of the Lisbon strategy.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=53 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Schmid, Herman">
Mr President, the Lisbon decisions were unique. On the one hand, they were characterised by a clearly right-wing financial policy of deregulation and privatisation and, on the other hand, by a left-wing policy of full employment, which thus, for the first time, became an official goal for the EU.
There was talk of a social agenda, social cohesion, combating poverty, lifelong learning for all, etc., in other words natural elements of left-wing policy.
<P>
At that time I was very surprised. I wondered how it was possible to unite - or balance, as Mrs Lindh said - right-wing and left-wing policy at the same time.
Now, the picture has become clearer, and I see that disagreement on financial policy remains.
<P>
Right-wing policy is clearly dominant ahead of the Stockholm Summit.
The focus is on stability policy, liberalisation and deregulation of the internal market.
The social profile is very weak.
The Stockholm Summit was to have employment as its main issue, but there are no proposals for meaningful action to combat the major unemployment which currently affects 14 - 15 million people.
<P>
One aim is to encourage women to enter the workplace. This is good.
Another aim is to increase employment of the older population, raise the retirement age, etc.
However, the proposals are primarily aimed at increasing the level of employment, not at lowering unemployment.
These are two different things.
The 15 million people who are unemployed in Europe today but already count as part of the labour force will not benefit to any great degree from new groups joining that labour force.
<P>
My political group considers that this is very serious. The Swedish Government should naturally also be concerned but, unlike France and Portugal, it has chosen not to create its own profile but instead to implement what the Commission and the large Member States want as loyally as possible.
<P>
When, in the past, the Swedish Government was heading the campaign for Sweden to join the EU, it said the goal was not only to retain the Swedish welfare state but also, together with other left-wing forces, to pursue a social welfare policy throughout Europe.
Now, we are heading in the opposite direction.
Right-wing policy is promoted in the EU, and the Swedish welfare policy is at risk.
This is taking place despite the fact that the economy is sound, despite a majority of left-wing governments in the Council and despite a left-wing majority in the Swedish Parliament.
Not even given optimum conditions have we in the last year approached a social Europe.
What will happen if the economic situation deteriorates and the Council gains more right-wing governments?
<P>
Time has run out for the Swedish Presidency.
To conclude, I wonder whether there really is nothing which the Swedish Government could prioritise ahead of the coming employment summit for those who are unemployed here and now.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=54 NAME="Collins">
Mr President, the forthcoming Stockholm Summit will address many of the European Union's key social and employment problems.
This is very timely, when new information technologies are ensuring that small, medium and large enterprises within the Union will now have to change their administrative structures.
<P>
I support the agenda set by the EU leaders at their summit in Lisbon last year.
The Union must continue to implement uniform and rights-led programmes of education relating to new information technologies, so that all citizens of the Union can be properly integrated into the workplace.
<P>
This presents us with two challenges.
First, those who are unskilled and lack the necessary training or educational qualifications must be given new opportunities.
I am referring in particular to the young and long-term unemployed still concentrated in certain urban and rural areas of the European Union.
The European Union Social Fund is a key financial mechanism which has been used very effectively, particularly in Objective 1 regions, to provide new training opportunities for the unskilled.
<P>
Secondly, it is equally important that the existing workforce is retrained in the skills demanded by new and changing information technologies.
Benefits can accrue for business from the use of the Internet and the related e-commerce opportunities.
<P>
Certainly the Commission, Parliament and Member States' governments have all worked closely together to ensure that the Stockholm Summit will be a success.
<P>
I recall that the Nice Council before Christmas set out a number of guidelines for new social policy measures.
EU leaders want to promote more and better jobs and worker mobility, anticipate and manage change in the working environment, combat poverty, exclusion and discrimination, modernise social protection systems and promote equality.
They also want to focus on the external implications of employment and social policies, particularly in relation to the enlargement process.
<P>
Parliament has been at the forefront of promoting these measures.
The Union has an unemployment rate of 8% and the target of full employment is attainable.
Those who say that it is not must not be listened to.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=55 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Blokland">
Mr President, in order to crank up the political-social debate on biotechnology, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have asked for this topic to be added to the agenda of the Stockholm Summit.
These Member States have indicated that the European Commission must think of a strategy which will lead to the European Union rubbing shoulders with the greatest in the global bio-industry and biotechnological research.
<P>
However promising the results of biotechnology may be, an ethical boundary remains necessary.
In January 1998, we held a debate on the Council of Europe' s Protocol, which included a ban on cloning humans.
I then expressed the fear that countries such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which then refused to sign the protocol, probably did not want the ban to be so stringent.
<P>
In December 2000, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom gave the green light to the therapeutic cloning of human embryos in laboratories. Although reproductive cloning is not permitted, research carries on.
There is the danger that permitting therapeutic cloning will leave the door open to the discussion on reproductive cloning. The argument will then be that, at the end of the day, the same technique is already being applied, only for a different purpose.
There is a doctor in Italy who already wants to clone people reproductively, and 60 volunteers have already come forward for this experiment.
<P>
I see each new human life as a gift of God.
Every form of human life must be treated with due respect. That is also the only way to protect human dignity.
The use of human embryos as consumer items, in the so-called name of research, is hence something that goes against the grain as far as I' m concerned.
<P>
In the discussion on human genetics, I call on the Council to maintain the ban on therapeutic cloning, as already expressed by the European Parliament in September 2000.
<P>
Mr President, it is almost impossible to discuss this issue in this arena.
I wonder whether Mr Suominen' s statement regarding 'not words but deeds' also applies to you?
What sanctions do you impose on people sabotaging this system?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=56 NAME="President">
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I asked you to be patient for ten minutes and that was half an hour ago.
Indeed, the problem does not seem to have been resolved.
We have been talking here this morning about high technology and it seems we still have some way to go.
I have asked the appropriate departments to take quick action but I, like you, am impatient for this noise to stop.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=57 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Carlsson, Gunilla">
Mr President, the Lisbon Process is to create the most dynamic economy in the world.
Open coordination has been chosen as the method, and I would like to share my experiences.
<P>
Sweden has taken part in a number of summits and processes.
Ever since the Essen Summit of 1994, there has been talk of the importance of lowering taxes on work and increasing flexibility.
In practice, Sweden has done the opposite.
Just as with its self-imposed exclusion on the question of the euro, it ignores what has been jointly decided. Instead, the tax burden is increased and entrepreneurs continue to be hampered.
In Stockholm, we must make comparisons and learn from each other.
<P>
So how will that work?
It is true that there is talk of increased employment but the truth in Sweden is that, despite three years of economic growth, more people remain outside the workforce than was the case in the early 1990s when we experienced the worst recession since the Second World War.
At the same time, real unemployment is hidden by labour market policy and temporary mass training initiatives which do not lead to quality jobs.
Furthermore, the statistics include a frightening rate of sick leave.
If we add latent job-seekers and the under-employed, unemployment in Sweden covers 17% of the workforce - compared with the official statistic of 5%.
<P>
The Lisbon Document talked a great deal about knowledge.
Despite all the talk of lifelong learning, in terms of knowledge, Sweden risks meltdown as we are failing right from the start.
34% of young people in upper secondary schools lack satisfactory qualifications in mathematics, Swedish and English.
At the same time, raising quality within education through independent schools and increased competition is being thwarted - exactly contrary to the intentions in Lisbon.
<P>
Swedish universities are in crisis.
It is true that Sweden has many people with degrees, but it lacks people with real cutting-edge expertise.
Therefore, the socialists are lowering taxes for rich specialists that have been flown in and raising taxes for permanently resident, poorly-educated Swedes.
<P>
Talking and planning is one thing - especially if you can do it in a meeting room somewhere else in Europe - but implementing and changing requires greater conviction.
Power to act is needed now, not least for national structural reforms and increased liberalisation at EU level.
Instead of devoting myself to meaningless compromises and fine words, I intend to continue to criticise the European model, which has so far not been able to create many new jobs but instead sentences far too many people to long-term unemployment, social exclusion, poverty and marginalisation.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=58 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Bullmann">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe has a very good chance of achieving the major objective set in Lisbon, i.e. of becoming the most competitive area with full employment.
The economic indicators are good, but this objective will not achieve itself and it will not implement itself.
We must have the courage to set decisive priorities.
Lisbon gave us clear guidelines within which to find the courage to set decisive priorities and move forward using a method of open coordination between the Member States.
These guidelines are clear and unequivocal.
They mean investing in people and in their skills and we have good cause to do so.
<P>
On the one hand, we talk of the new opportunities offered by information and communications technologies and of the millions of jobs which they can create.
But on the other hand, fewer than 22% of our employees are given specific training.
We talk of the opportunities of a new European labour market and mobility for the young generation, but we stop short of creating the right conditions for it in our schools and on our vocational training programmes.
We talk of already having bottlenecks on the specialist job markets, but we seem unable to implement a specific integration policy to help the unemployed - and there are well over 14 million in the European Union - make their own contribution to the working population.
<P>
I ask you, Mr President of the Commission, and I ask you, Madam President-in-Office: there has been talk here of the stability pact, which was supposedly a success.
Why are we unable to apply the same rigour, the same clear method of open coordination so as to ensure that every young person on the European labour market has a suitable chance to get started in a new European future?
That is the brief for Stockholm, that is the brief for the following summit, which is precisely why Stockholm must not degenerate into a one-sided liberalisation summit.
<P>
I know that the balance spoken of here is in jeopardy, which is why I call on you, Madam President-in-Office, to summon up the strength and courage in the Swedish Presidency to put the integrated policy of economic reform, social cohesion and job promotion which we welcomed into practice.
This is precisely why we need clear, uncompromising interim objectives, both for the employment process and for the new public budget guidelines.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=59 NAME="Lambert">
Mr President, we welcome the Lisbon Summit's emphasis on dealing with social exclusion. That emphasis recognises what is already clear.
Despite the gradual increase in economic growth within the Union over the years, there are still millions of people who have not benefited.
Indeed, in some Member States, such as my own, which have tended to follow the American model, the gap between rich and poor has been widening.
We are also seeing significant numbers of working poor, those who have jobs but cannot afford to live on their wages.
There is a still a huge gap between the incomes of men and women, which continues into old age and must be an important issue in the discussion on pensions.
Growth alone is not the solution to social deprivation and it never has been.
Distribution and equality of opportunity are also important, hence the need to include social criteria alongside the economic goals and the use of appropriate indicators to look at the combined effect.
<P>
As we have heard, however, Stockholm will not just deal with the Lisbon follow-up. It will be a first step towards explaining how the European Union is going to deliver on sustainable development.
It is obvious to us that unless we factor the environment into our economic thinking there will no chance of having a sustainable economy.
We have to find an economic path that does not strip the world of its natural resources and produce toxic or greenhouse emissions.
That means we have to look at the quality of the economic growth we seek and not just the amount.
If 3% growth depends on depleting fish stocks, increasing car travel or cleaning up after crime, it is not the sort of growth that improves the quality of life or quality of the environment for anyone.
It is not sustainable and that is why we have urged the use of appropriate environmental indicators alongside the social and economic ones.
We can then adopt a coherent approach to sustainable development and see if we really are achieving the results we want.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=60 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Muscardini">
Mr President, the headlong and often uncontrolled development of society and the economy calls for an extra effort at the Stockholm Council.
<P>
The crisis in food production, incorporating the collapse of stock-rearing and the distribution, processing and sale of meat is a priority issue, as are consumer anxiety and apprehension about the consequences of eating food contaminated by disease, deterioration or adulteration. There is the ever-increasing scandal of food fraud, and mass distribution has an enormous responsibility for guaranteeing the distribution of food that is safe for consumers to eat and for preventing the systematic destruction of the whole of small and medium-sized distribution - which is an essential factor for local speciality products and preserving jobs.
<P>
We are wondering, too, whether Stockholm will mark the birth of the Food Safety Agency, announced long ago and always postponed, and we put forward the city of Parma as the most appropriate candidate for its location.
<P>
We are also wondering about safety with regard to the use of wholly or partly genetically modified foods, and about the weight of that problem with regard to baby foods, pharmaceutical products or products on general sale such as vitamins or integrators containing animal gelatines.
<P>
Other questions relate to scientific research into BSE, the disposal of tens of thousands of animal carcasses, slaughtered and burned, or slaughtering methods that often fail to show even minimal respect for the animals themselves and the environment; and again, natural catastrophes, often not so natural, when bridges collapse, houses crumble and rivers burst their banks, destroying men and property because the people who built them were negligent and disregarded the law and the safety of the territory.
<P>
The Stockholm Summit should address all those issues along with other factors, such as the on-going unregulated use of the Internet, at least as far as the European Union is concerned. Regulation is needed to guarantee that the network is about freedom and not about abuse and violence, as in sites promoting paedophilia, drug trafficking and so on.
The record companies and the economy have closed Napster down. When will the European governments close down the paedophile sites?
And last but not least, there is the pollution of the Mediterranean and other seas.
<P>
And we wonder if the Stockholm Council will at least take an interest in the slump in the new market and the consequences for consumers.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=61 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Jarzembowski">
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the liberalisation of postal services, which you too referred to, Madam President-in-Office.
The postal services are one example of just how inefficient Council meetings are.
It was decided in Lisbon to speed up the liberalisation of postal services.
<P>
We adopted our position in the European Parliament before the end of the year, in the hope that the Council would adopt its common position by the end of the year.
What happened?
Not a thing!
The Council did not adopt a common position.
We should in fact admit to ourselves that the Council does not want to adopt a common position.
Germany has decided to extend the post office monopoly because everything has ground to a halt in Europe.
<P>
Madam President-in-Office, we call on you to ensure at the Stockholm Summit that the Heads of State and Government instruct their ministers to proceed with the liberalisation of postal services without delay.
Only this will prove that Council meetings make any sense or any headway.
<P>
And then you should pass a second resolution, Madam President-in-Office, stating that the Heads of State and Government must evaluate structural policy, post haste.
We must be in a position to reform structural policy in 2003 at the latest, for two reasons.
Firstly, because structural policy is extremely important to labour market policy in numerous countries and, secondly, because we have to tell candidate countries what to expect in the new period if they accede after 2005/2006.
<P>
In this respect, Madam President-in-Office, please make sure that the summit passes specific resolutions on the liberalisation of postal services and the evaluation of the structural funds so that we can make headway for the period after 2006.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your attention.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=62 NAME="President">
Thank you, Mr Jarzembowski.
<P>
The debate on this issue is suspended and will be resumed at 3 p.m.
<P>
We shall now proceed to the vote.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=63 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Díez González">
Mr President, I would like to present the House with a point of order.
Yesterday afternoon, during Questions to the Commission, there was a Question No 91 from the Spanish People' s Party MEP, Mrs García-Orcoyen.
The last question answered during those Questions to the Commission was Question No 61.
<P>
Today, certain sections of the Spanish press are publishing the 'question' and the supposed reply from Commissioner Wallström.
This morning, after becoming aware of this information, the Socialist Group made a written request to the Parliamentary services to issue that reply.
At 11.28 this morning we received the following written reply from the services of this House:
<P>
'I must inform you that the reply to the said question from Mrs García-Orcoyen, which was communicated to us when Question Time had ended, is awaiting translation.
Once translated and sent officially to the author you will be sent a copy by e-mail.
Signed: João Correa' .
<P>
How is it possible, Mr President, that we MEPs do not have the reply - and nor did the author of the question - when it is already in the hands of the press, not only the supposed reply, but also an explanatory communication of the response from the Spanish People' s Party, explaining it?
Mr President, this is the second time in one month that something like this has happened and supposed replies are being leaked to the Spanish media before the MEPs themselves - and, I repeat, even the authors of the questions - have heard the reply.
How can this happen?
Is it pure chance that on these two occasions the supposed reply supports the positions of the Spanish Government?
Does the Spanish Government have a mole somewhere in the Commission or in Parliament?
Mr President, as an MEP, I would ask you for protection for Parliament and respect for MEPs.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=64 NAME="President">
As you clearly indicate in your comments, the services of this House were not in touch with the media in any way.
If there has been a leak it has come from the Commission and we will certainly take this matter up with them.
It is unacceptable that the media should receive an answer before the Member who tabled the question receives such an answer.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=65 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Galeote Quecedo">
Mr President, I simply wanted to point out that the Spanish media are very professional and that it therefore does not surprise me that they have this ability to access sources of information.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=66 NAME="President">
I always like hearing about people who are good at their job.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=3>
VOTE
<SPEAKER ID=90 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Êorakas">
No one disputes the fact that we need to take measures to prevent what is called urban crime, child abuse and drug-related crime.
Nor does anyone dispute the causes of this type of crime.
Every modern criminologist agrees that the causes are primarily social: poverty, unemployment, social inequality, the promotion of rampant competition and the quest for maximum profit, which today' s world order hopes to impose as the ultimate ideal, all foster crime.
Consequently, as long as we have a socio-economic system based on the exploitation of man by man, crime will thrive.
<P>
One would have expected to find proposals for measures - mainly social and economic measures - to relieve this situation or, at the very least, to stem the rising crime rate through prevention.
Instead, the French and Swedish initiatives on which the report is based propose creating a network so that Member States can exchange information on measures taken in this area.
Even worse, the report makes a scientifically unacceptable correlation between small-scale crime and organised crime.
Preventing common crime means, first and foremost, taking measures to reduce the social causes of crime or, at the very least, measures which make crime more difficult to commit.
In organised crime, however, the emphasis is on suppression.
<P>
This correlation has not come about by chance and proves once again that the real need to combat common crime is being used as a pretext to curtail people' s rights and freedoms and create an even more authoritarian institutional framework.
And let us not forget that the recent resolutions of the European Parliament on organised crime contain measures which completely restrict any civil or liberal rights in the criminal justice sector.
A Greek bill is currently being debated along precisely these lines; in it the government has strengthened mechanisms to suppress popular movements on the pretext of "stamping out terrorism and crime".
<P>
For these reasons, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece will be voting against the report.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=91 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Krivine">
In the Commission communication to the Council and Parliament dated 29 November 2000, on the prevention of crime in the European Union, problems such as crime, delinquency, violence and lack of public spirit are all grouped together.
This is an extremely dangerous approach.
This is not surprising given that the proposal to create a European prevention network is structured not only around public and judicial authorities but also the private sector, with links to Europol, OLAF and the European Drugs Observatory.
<P>
The creation of this information exchange network, which purports to be a pilot project and whose priorities are juvenile delinquency, urban crime and drug-related crime, apart from running the risk of the establishment of European files, cannot but contribute to the criminalisation of young people who are already victims of the security policies adopted in the guise of the fight against the feeling of insecurity.
<P>
As far as prevention is concerned, no concrete proposal has been formulated other than the award of a European Crime Prevention Prize!
<P>
At a time when European policies on employment more often than not condemn young people to unemployment or to insecure employment, and when entire neighbourhoods of towns are places of economic and social exclusion, a genuine policy of prevention must be introduced with social workers and public services.
For all these reasons, I voted against the report.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=92 NAME="Titley">
I fully support the establishment of a European crime prevention network by the last French Presidency and the current Swedish Presidency, which demonstrates the EU's commitment to combating crime and protecting our citizens.
<P>
We must be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
It is not enough for any Member State to work alone in combating crime.
We need to work together with our European neighbours to tackle this issue. We must develop contact points and crime prevention strategies, and support crime prevention activities at local and national level across the European Union.
It is important that we pay special attention to juvenile, urban and drug-related crime.
<P>
These crime-busting measures must be implemented from Blackburn to Barcelona.
Only by working together across Europe can we combat the social evils of crime.
Therefore, our children will be protected whether they are in north-west England or the South of France.
<P>
The British Labour Government puts crime at the top of its agenda, and is reducing violent crime and disorder.
The Tories, on the other hand, offer nothing but rising crime and falling investment.
Crime is a major concern for our citizens; we must ensure it stays our number one priority in Europe.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=93 NAME="Watson">
<SPEAKER ID=94 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Fatuzzo">
Thank you for your birthday wishes, Mr President, and my thanks, as well, to Francesco Enrico Speroni.
<P>
As regards the report on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence, I want to say that, yesterday, I was waiting for the lift on the tenth floor of the Tower, when a beautiful young European girl came up to me - confidentiality prevents me from telling you her name, I can only say that it starts with the letter M - and she said: 'Bravo Mr Fatuzzo!
I listen to your explanations of vote with great interest because, although I am young, I too am interested in older people and pensioners.
I have had a problem with the courts, a civil case which has dragged on and on.
So if you vote for the report on cooperation between courts, I will always enjoy listening to you even more.'
<P>
Bösch report (A5-0078/2001)
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=95 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Fatuzzo">
Mr President, the Bösch report has received the support of Mr Fatuzzo, the representative of the Pensioners' Party, who is concerned about protecting the Communities' financial interests and combating fraud.
<P>
But I would be glad to see the interests of employees of the European Community protected too, because, from what I heard yesterday, they have very little pensions protection, especially if they have been working in countries outside the European Community.
<P>
In my opinion, European civil servants should have the same rights as those who live in any State of the Union.
I therefore hope to be able to vote soon for the protection of the Community' s social security interests.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=96 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Caullery">
Clearing up once and for all the very serious cases of fraud highlighted in 1999 is both a test of the credibility of the European Commission and a test of the efficiency of OLAF.
The Commission will have to convince us and the people of Europe of its determination to see its statements followed up by action in the fight against corruption and fraud.
<P>
Our group supports the request of the Committee on Budgetary Control regarding its call for greater operational independence for OLAF and its director, towards the European Commission, in exercising its powers of investigation.
By the same token, to be able to carry out its controlling function, the European Parliament must have access to OLAF reports without any special difficulty and whenever it wants.
We vehemently reject, however, the federalist demand for the speedy appointment of a European prosecutor, as called for in the report by Mr Bösch, even though the most seasoned supporters of a federal system acknowledge, amongst themselves and on the quiet, that it would be wiser to wait for another ten years at least.
<P>
As regards Community fraud and judicial matters, it would be preferable and far more judicious to have recourse to Eurojust. This is a structure of intergovernmental cooperation within the Council and is made up of three officers from each of the fifteen Member States of the European Union: one judge, one representative from the Public Prosecutor' s Office (prosecutor) and one police superintendent.
This option would be much more respectful of national wishes.
<P>
If we also take into account the very serious cases of fraud which were brought to light in 1999 and which still have to be cleared up, we cannot fail to be astonished by the double standards of a unilateral approach which only highlights certain matters (such as Fléchard I, which is being used in an attempt to destabilise certain top-ranking civil servants in France and to put the spotlight on Ireland and France by artificially dragging out the issue, or Fléchard II, in which German, Italian and Belgian companies are now involved).
<P>
(Intervention shortened pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure)
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=97 NAME="Crowley">
I supported the overall impact of the Bösch report.
It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we can strengthen the fight against fraud and protect the interests of all taxpayers in Europe.
<P>
My only difference with the rapporteur is in relation to paragraphs 7 and 10, where there is a call for the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor's Office.
I have had a long-held opposition to the establishment of this office, which has been raised, not only in this context, but also on the question of cross-border criminal proceedings.
I believe that there is no legal basis for this office and due to the different legal systems in the Member States there is no guarantee of the presumption of innocence and also that the probable success of prosecutions would be no quicker or more successful than the present system.
<P>
However, despite these concerns, I have voted in favour of the report and I congratulate the rapporteur.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=98 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Ducarme">
The Santer Commission was forced to resign following suspicions of fraud which I will not go into again.
<P>
During the hearings of the present Commissioners, all of them, led by Mr Prodi, promised to reform their departments and to establish a genuine European Anti-Fraud Office which would be independent and would have the necessary resources to carry out its tasks to the best of its ability.
<P>
OLAF is now a reality but we must keep going along this excellent path.
We still have to define certain operating procedures and to guarantee the full independence of the Office.
<P>
The report presented by Mr Bösch clearly highlights the problems which remain and ways of solving them.
So we insist that the OLAF reports are sent to the competent committee of the European Parliament.
<P>
More importantly, however, the report launches an urgent appeal for the establishment of a genuine European Public Prosecutor' s Office charged with scrutinising every case of fraud perpetrated against the financial interests of the European Communities.
This is an essential element in the necessary fight against fraud which, together with the Commission, we must see through to a successful conclusion in the shortest possible time.
The credibility and the image of the European Union are at stake.
<P>
Finally, in his explanatory statement, Mr Bösch floated the idea of inviting the future Belgian Presidency to do everything in its power to ensure that serious progress is made in the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor' s Office.
<P>
I fully subscribe to this idea.
<P>
The report by Mr Bösch is ambitious, resolute and realistic.
I therefore voted for this report in the fervent hope that the Belgian Presidency might set the European Union on the path chosen by the European Parliament.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=99 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Goebbels and Poos">
Whilst endorsing the proposals in the resolution on protecting the Communities' financial interests, we abstained on the paragraphs concerning the appointment of a European Public Prosecutor.
<P>
The establishment of a European Public Ministry was not agreed at the Nice European Council and is therefore not mentioned in the new Treaty.
<P>
Yet, in order to establish a new authority with judicial powers and to provide it with the necessary authority in all Member States, an indisputable legal basis would have to be created.
<P>
As long as this basis does not exist, it is undesirable for the European Parliament to invite the Commission to put forward a proposal in this direction.
<P>
This is also true when the powers of the prosecutor are limited to offences committed by members and agents of the institutions of the European Union.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=100 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Meijer">
The European Union collects and distributes funding.
It is predictable that such a large-scale and centralised distribution circuit will attract the attention of fraudsters.
If money is doled out, people try to be one of the recipients.
Some businessmen assume that they are entitled to subsidies from a government which is ostensibly overflowing with funding.
That notion is reinforced by stories about enormous unsalable supplies for which there is seemingly no market which have been doing the rounds for decades.
These stockpiles are partly the result of subsidies.
It started 40 years ago with the scrap fraud and continues until this day.
In the case of the strong growth of the flax production in Spain and the subsequent burning of superfluous supplies, even the name of the then Agricultural Minister, now a member of the European Commission, has been quoted in connection with this case.
Only by halting the unnecessary flow of money can such frauds be brought to an end.
National and regional governments can make more accurate assessments and manage that money far more effectively than the European Union, which is too remote from everyone and which gives the impression that it has too much money anyway.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=101 NAME="Miller">
I voted for the Bösch report but I did so with some reluctance as I share along with many of my colleagues doubts about a European Public Prosecutor and its role.
<P>
However, as this role has been confined to criminal offences committed against the financial interests of the European Communities by members and employees of EU institutions, then I felt this restricted role is worth supporting.
<P>
The location of this office in Luxembourg is sensible due to the proximity of the European Court of Justice.
<P>
The widening of the scope of the European Public Prosecutors office will have to be carefully monitored so as not to encroach into the Member States competence.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=102 NAME="Tannock">
The Conservative Party is fighting hard to attack fraud within the EU but we cannot support this report because of its references to a European Public Prosecutor, which we believe is an incursion on national sovereignty in the area of criminal justice.
We have therefore abstained on the final vote in order to reflect our support for the fight against fraud within the EU, whilst protecting our position on the European Public Prosecutor.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=103 NAME="Titley">
. I congratulate my Socialist colleague Mr Bosch for his report which pushes for stronger measures to step up the fight against fraud and makes the zero tolerance principle a reality.
<P>
We have come a long way since the fraud and mismanagement report of the Commission which led to its resignation in 1999, but there is still much work to do.
Not least there is the problem of trafficking in adulterated butter using vegetable and animal fats and even chemical substances, leading to an estimated loss to the EU budget of some EUR 45 million.
There is also the highly irregular matter of the flax case and EU subsidies for flax growing in certain Member States.
<P>
I welcome the fact that many Member States have joined the action brought by the Commission in the case against the big American tobacco companies before the European Court of Justice.
Today is UK Non-Smoking Day, and it seems apt to support this case which is intended to combat large-scale tobacco smuggling which causes revenue losses of several billion euros every year to the EU and Member States' budgets.
<P>
Madam President, we must tackle the root causes of maladministration and fraud.
Commissioner Kinnock is leading the way, at the forefront of these reforms in the Commission.
I am sure that Neil Kinnock is precisely the right person to help restore public confidence in the EU institutions and their actions.
We in the European Parliament should support him in his role.
How anyone can endorse or allow fraud is beyond me.
All of us, the EU institutions and the Member States themselves have an important role to play in ensuring that our citizens regain confidence in the European Union.
<P>
Wijkman report (A5-0054/2001)
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=104 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Fatuzzo">
Mr President, I am prompted to say 'How cold it is!' This is the second report in which we take an interest in warming up people in our Community.
Earlier on, we were thinking about warming up the drivers of articulated lorries, and now we have this report - I voted for it - which seeks to improve energy efficiency in the European Community. It also covers all forms of energy saving such as district heating in cities - something I hope for warmly, the right word in the circumstances.
In fact, a lot of energy can be saved with district heating, because a single boiler can heat the homes of ten, twenty, a hundred, a thousand city dwellers.
So, with this system, there could also be more heating in the houses of pensioners, who are often cold because of their modest pensions.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=105 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Eriksson, Herman Schmid and Sjöstedt">
We would hereby point out that the reason we voted in favour of the original text in Mr Wijkman' s report, A5-0054/2001 paragraph 26 (viii), was not because we want to see common, supranational taxes at EU level.
Instead, the reason is because we want the Commission to take account of this issue so that, in the future, we might be able, if need be, to agree upon intergovernmental solutions when it comes to the taxation of fuel.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=106 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Rübig">
We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies.
This does not mean introducing a European tax; it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised.
This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term.
The economy is based on secure energy supplies.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=107 NAME="President">
That concludes the explanations of vote.
<P>
(The sitting was suspended at 1.12 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=8>
Question Time (Council)
<SPEAKER ID=180 NAME="President">
<SPEAKER ID=181 NAME="William Francis Newton Dunn">
Question No 2 by (H-0141/01):
<P>
Subject: Bringing the citizens of Europe closer to the decision makers What progress has the Council Presidency made with my suggestion, which it seemed to welcome at its meeting with committee chairmen in Brussels earlier this month, for the President-in-Office to make an EU-wide television broadcast at the end of each six-month presidency and report to the citizens of Europe on the progress made?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=182 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Danielsson">
I would like to thank the honourable Member for addressing such an important issue as bridging the gap between citizens and decision makers.
At the European Council in Nice, Member States once again repeated their aim to bring the Union and its institutions closer to their citizens.
<P>
The presidency agrees with the honourable Member that the citizens of the EU should be informed about progress in the future development of the European Union.
The importance of really reaching out to our citizens cannot be stressed enough.
The difficulties at European level are largely the same as the difficulties we encounter at national level. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be discouraged by this.
<P>
We are working hard, and will continue to do so, to find suitable methods for improving communication with the citizens of Europe.
In this work, it is important that people receive on-going information in order to be able to assess connections and the whole picture.
<P>
I would like to remind you of the possibility of holding public Council debates.
One of the Swedish Presidency' s first priorities was to draw up a list of public debates which covers as much of the Council' s operations as possible.
In addition, the Council, like the other institutions and the Member States, is organising regular seminars and conferences and producing easily accessible printed material on the Union' s development.
<P>
The honourable Member has a more specific proposal which we discussed at a meeting with the committee chairpersons in January, but the presidency itself is unable to arrange such a matter.
However, a debate is planned when the Swedish Prime Minister attends the European Parliament' s plenary session in July in order, as is tradition, to report on the result of the European Council in Gothenburg and on what the presidency country achieved during the period as a whole.
<P>
Debates from the European Parliament plenary sessions are regularly broadcast live by satellite across Europe.
What remains is to ensure that the broadcasts reach the widest possible audience.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=183 NAME="Newton Dunn">
In other words - no, but it was a very nicely wrapped-up reply.
Mr President-in-Office, you and I agree on the goals of trying to inform the European public, not just in Brussels but everywhere, of what we are doing.
I suggest that you should try - or get your staff to try - to sell the idea to television companies.
Although your Prime Minister will make a wonderful speech here in the plenary in July, reporting on the presidency, a speech in this chamber is not the same as a comfortable talk to the peoples of Europe.
<P>
If you think of the way that President Clinton did it, it is not the same thing.
I really do urge you - the publications, the seminars, the debates that you organise in Brussels are not the way to reach 300 million people the length and breadth of Europe.
A nice TV chat by the Swedish Prime Minister would be a very good beginning and it is not good enough just to do it in this chamber.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=184 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Danielsson">
It is easy to agree in principle with Mr Newton Dunn' s wish that coordinated messages on what is happening in the Union be disseminated as widely as possible.
However it is currently the case, I am glad to say, that we have free and independent media in Europe.
I am a little doubtful if even a government as energetic as the Swedish one can convince independent TV channels, for example, to embrace the undoubtedly excellent ideas which Mr Newton Dunn proposes.
<P>
I also think that, to a certain extent, the Member underestimates Parliament' s opportunities as a political arena to reach out with a message.
I hope that, together, we will be able to work to disseminate good, solid and interesting information on what is happening in the Union.
However, we must do so while respecting the fact that it is the independent media which decides what should or should not be broadcast.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=185 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Álavanos">
Mr President, I had the first question.
Question time should have begun, if the Bureau had organised today' s debate properly, at quarter past six.
We started half an hour late, at which time I was chairing the meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee with Bulgaria, having arranged to be here at quarter past six.
That proved to be impossible and I was one minute late due to the Bureau' s delay.
If I too must be punished because the Bureau does not keep to the timetable, then so be it.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=186 NAME="President">
Mr Alavanos, I am as sorry as you are that your question has lapsed.
The time that the debate begins does not depend on my will.
As all the Members have heard, I have apologised and I regret the situation.
I hope that it does not happen again.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=187 NAME="President">
<SPEAKER ID=188 NAME="Ewa Hedkvist Petersen">
Question No 3 by (H-0229/01):
<P>
Subject: Strengthening dialogue with Europe's citizens Europe's citizens are very interested in matters relating to the European Union.
This has become obvious to me as a Swede as a result of the informal ministerial meetings held in Sweden, and most recently the meeting in Luleå of ministers responsible for telecommunications and labour market policies.
<P>
As democratically elected Members of the European Parliament, we continually meet members of the public in our constituencies.
The Commission's Dialogue on Europe has enabled it to meet members of the public regularly all over the Member States.
The Council's role is more complicated. Where national governments are concerned, EU-related matters have to compete with domestic issues, yet it is the Council that takes the big decisions.
We know how important it is, in order to build confidence in the European Union, for the Council to engage in dialogue with Europe's citizens on the shape of European policies.
<P>
Will the Council therefore explain what it intends to do to strengthen its dialogue with Europe's citizens on European policies, for instance in connection with ministerial meetings?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=189 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Danielsson">
The Council agrees with the honourable Member that dialogue with the citizens of the EU must be improved in accordance with the decision taken by the European Council in Nice in December 2000.
<P>
The declaration to the Final Act of the conference on the future of the EU acknowledges the need to improve and monitor the legitimacy and openness of the Union and its institutions in order to bring them closer to the citizens of the Member States.
<P>
As far as the Council' s meetings are concerned, initiatives are being developed to ensure that the discussions will be more open and transparent.
This will be achieved through public debates which can mean making deliberations open to the media and EU citizens through live broadcasts via internal TV or, unfortunately less commonly, directly via TV stations.
We are also trying to make press conferences and press releases increasingly informative.
<P>
Other positive measures to raise the awareness of the public involve creating better access to information via conventional channels and electronically.
In this context, on 19 March 2001, the Council is expected to decide to make public certain categories of the Council' s documents.
The aim is to make public as many of the Council' s documents as possible on the Internet without waiting for a demand from the public.
This decision will enter into force on 1 May 2001.
<P>
So a great deal is being done. Despite this, the Council will naturally continue its analysis in order to further improve the dialogue with the EU' s citizens on the Council' s work.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=190 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Hedkvist Petersen">
I would like to thank the Council for that answer.
The decisions taken in the EU are extremely important for us European citizens, as they affect our daily lives.
It is therefore also important, as the Council agrees, that citizens be given increased opportunities to follow and assess the political debates, so that they can then vote.
Voting in elections is the citizens' opportunity to show what they want Europe' s development to look like.
We are in complete agreement on this.
<P>
With my country, Sweden, holding the presidency, this naturally becomes even more of an issue for me as the Council' s meetings are held around the country.
I am naturally satisfied with the measures taken by the Council and with the fact that work on analysing ways of increasing openness is to continue.
No doubt, the Internet and electronic means can be used considerably more than they are currently.
Debates can be followed live not only on TV, but via the Internet too.
This is my counsel to the Council.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=191 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Rübig">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dialogue with citizens is one of the main issues for us on a daily basis and I would therefore like to know what the Council intends to do to bring the post-Nice process closer to our citizens.
<P>
What we could do is set up our own chat rooms, for example on the Internet, where citizens could use a search engine to locate specific subjects and browse through subjects of personal interest.
I also think it would be a good idea if we provided video streams of debates in Parliament, the Council and the Commission in each language, in order to give citizens an opportunity to become more involved in this dialogue.
Do you think this might be something for the Swedish Presidency to focus on after the Lisbon Summit?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=192 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Danielsson">
The honourable Member noted perhaps in this morning's debate on the future of the Union that one of the many specific measures now being taken to stimulate increased debate is precisely the launch of a web page, which will be managed by the Commission, but to which the Council, the Member States, Parliament and all interested parties can make written contributions.
<P>
I do not know whether it is possible to extend the venture by opening a chat room as well, as suggested by Mr Rübig.
I think, however, that it is an interesting idea and I will gladly discuss the feasibility of implementing this in practice with Commission representatives.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=193 NAME="Newton Dunn">
Mr President, the President-in-Office mentioned a forthcoming decision about putting some documents of the Council in the public domain on the Internet.
Does the Council intend to respect fully the decision of the Ombudsman whereby, if I understand it correctly, all Council documents have to be made available to the public and not just some?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=194 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Danielsson">
Allow me to stress that we are of the opinion - and I am talking now on behalf of the presidency - that the Ombudsman's recommendations regarding making documents available to the public is a very important step towards the increased openness which this Parliament in particular, has worked hard for.
<P>
The decision, which we anticipate it will be possible to take on 19 March, does not go as far as the Ombudsman has proposed, but must be seen as a step in the right direction.
It is the presidency's sincere hope that it will be possible to take the additional steps required to increase openness as soon as possible.
However, we will not have reached that position by 19 March, which I freely admit.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=195 NAME="President">
<SPEAKER ID=196 NAME="Jonas Sjöstedt">
Question No 4 by (H-0145/01):
<P>
Subject: Passports for Swedes travelling within the Nordic region From 25 March 2001, Sweden and the other Nordic countries will take part in Schengen cooperation.
Current Swedish ID cards do not meet identification requirements under the Schengen provisions.
<P>
A new national ID card in Sweden may replace the Swedish passport next year but what happens in the meantime?
Must Swedish citizens carry their passports after 25 March 2001 when travelling in the Nordic countries until they obtain the new Swedish ID card?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=197 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Danielsson">
The Council would like to make Mr Sjöstedt aware of the fact that the Schengen provisions do not regulate the issue of passports and ID cards as far as EU citizens are concerned.
<P>
According to the Nordic passport union, which some of us of course defend passionately, citizens in the Nordic countries have the right to travel within the territory of the Nordic countries without having to show their passports.
<P>
The agreements on the accession of Denmark, Finland and Sweden to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and the agreements between the Council of the European Union and Iceland and Norway concerning the association of these states in the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis contain a provision stating that these agreements must not constitute a barrier to cooperation within the framework of the Nordic passport union to the extent that this does not oppose or obstruct implementation of the agreements.
<P>
Moreover, the implementation of the Schengen agreement neither opposes nor obstructs the Nordic passport union.
Once the Nordic countries have joined in the practical Schengen cooperation, the citizens of the Nordic countries will still have the right to travel within the territory of the Nordic countries and spend the night at hotels, camping sites etc. without having to show their passports.
The implementation of the Schengen acquis in the Nordic countries will not therefore entail citizens having to show their passports.
Consequently, Swedish citizens will also be able to travel within the Nordic countries without a passport after 25 March 2001.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=198 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Sjöstedt">
The basis for my question is Article 45 of the Schengen Agreement, which states that anyone who books into a hotel in another Schengen country must produce a means of identification and prove their citizenship, but the only document a Swedish citizen has which shows their citizenship is their passport.
<P>
My question is whether there is a formal exemption from Article 45 for Sweden in the Schengen Convention, as there surely needs to be in such cases.
<P>
My second question, if there is no such exemption, is whether it is the Union's authorities who ultimately decide which type of identity documentation is acceptable.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=9>
Regulation of European securities markets (continuation)
<SPEAKER ID=228 NAME="President">
The next item is the continuation of the joint debate on the following oral questions:
<P>
B5-0016/01 by Mrs Randzio-Plath, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to the Council, on the final report of the Committee of Wise Men on the regulation of the European securities markets;
<P>
B5-0017/01 by Mrs Randzio-Plath, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to the Commission, on the final report of the Committee of Wise Men on the regulation of the European securities markets.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=229 NAME="Villiers">
Mr President, I very much welcome the Lamfalussy report and the opportunity to comment on it, but I would like to start by putting on record my personal thanks to Mr Bolkestein for coming along at this late hour despite the interruption.
I know it is appreciated by all my colleagues.
<P>
We are all aware of the benefits of the single market in financial services but I will re-state them because they are so important: cheaper products for consumers, better returns for savers and easier and cheaper finance for business.
Sadly, this remains an aspiration rather than a reality.
One of the main reasons we are failing to achieve such a single market is poor implementation and inconsistent interpretation.
Both of these will be helped by Mr Lamfalussy's proposals, which are sensible and pragmatic.
<P>
We need further assurances and guarantees on transparency and market consultation and on democratic oversight, but I hope we and the other two European Union institutions can find a way to make these proposals work.
This is an important political opportunity which should not be wasted and I am glad to hear that the Commission is taking a pragmatic view on its right of initiative.
<P>
As Mr Bolkestein stated in his introduction, he does not have concerns about the role of the regulators' committee.
We need to see that kind of flexibility from the Council as well and if it is true that the Council is trying to roll back the European Parliament's limited role in the comitology process under present rules, that is unhelpful and regrettable.
All three institutions will need to show goodwill and make sacrifices and compromises if this arrangement is to work, but it is a prize well worth fighting for because the single market in securities will yield many benefits for the people we are elected to represent.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=230 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Medina Ortega">
Mr President, I would like to add my voice to the comments of Mrs Villiers regarding the presence of Commissioner Bolkestein and I believe it is fortunate that, in a debate as brief as this one, we have the Commissioner present so that he can reply to us almost immediately.
<P>
I am not speaking as a member of the Committee on Economic Affairs but as a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and I would like to express my agreement with the comments by Mr Cox, Mr Goebbels and Mr Herzog.
In short, we have a legislative problem.
We all agree that Community legislation is very complicated, very ornate and very complex, but the reason why Community legislation is so complicated and ornate is the intergovernmental procedure which is used to adopt regulations and the lack of a genuine Community legislative body which has the capacity to adopt clear regulations.
Therefore, while we agree basically with Mr Lamfalussy and the committee of experts, and with the need for clear and rapid Community legislation, we cannot agree with the solution they propose because that would mean more committees and more of the famous comitology procedure.
In this respect I must remind you of a famous saying that 'a camel is a horse drawn by a committee' , with many humps, and Community legislation is camel-like.
The comitology procedure currently proposed by the Lamfalussy report would create many more camels and would not create satisfactory legislation.
<P>
This type of proposal and the continued insistence on comitology is not therefore the solution.
The solution lies in creating a clear legislative procedure which allows Parliament to effectively exercise its powers.
Otherwise we would simply be allowing the governments to continue playing amongst themselves and drawing Community legislative camels.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=231 NAME="Kauppi">
Mr President, Commissioner, it must be rather dull to listen to these speeches here at this time of the evening, particularly when we are so unanimously agreed in matters.
There is certainly a lot that is being repeated in these speeches.
<P>
I, too, think that the Committee of Wise Men, chaired by Baron Lamfalussy, has done an exceptionally thorough job.
The committee' s proposals form a coherent whole and also contain some practical and concrete measures to bring the system into effect.
It is generally rare in politics to make such clear proposals and I thank this committee for them.
<P>
We members of the European Parliament agree fully with the view that it is necessary to make regulation of the securities markets more efficient and faster.
This is a requirement that we should propose if we want to achieve a genuinely viable European internal market for financial services within the next few years.
We can never achieve the ambitious aims of Lisbon if the reform of one directive on the financial markets is to take ten years, as has tended to be the case with the present system, if we take the UCITS directive as an example.
<P>
Parliament alone cannot be blamed for the present system' s shortcomings, however.
Parliament has taken its role as the EU' s second legislative body seriously and responsibly.
During this parliamentary term in particular we have shown that there is no conflict between safeguarding Parliament' s powers of influence and adequate democratic control, on the one hand, and the call for greater speed and efficiency, on the other.
Parliament' s principal task is to determine what the core political questions are, and not beat around the bush. For that reason, delegating the responsibility of technical legislation to the committee to be set up is basically not a problem for us.
The bosses do not do the work of the secretaries, and vice versa.
In the codecision procedure Parliament and the Council are the bosses and all the others the secretaries.
This, however, does not weaken the demand Parliament is making in plain terms in the form of the 'callback' mechanism. Parliament must have the legally binding right to refer a matter back for further consideration if things are moving in the wrong direction.
<P>
Parliament is not the only institution that wants to ensure it is safeguarded in this way; the Council has also expressed a similar need to safeguard its own position with the help of the 'aerosol clause' .
This sort of system, which would take the concerns of both Parliament and the Council into account, must also be created on the basis of the Lamfalussy report.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=232 NAME="Bolkestein">
To begin with I should like to answer some of the points that were raised this afternoon.
<P>
First of all, Mr von Wogau said that he welcomes the use of regulations and also the fast-track procedure.
I would agree with him in his sentiment. Certainly regulations and a fast-track procedure would help to speed up legislation.
Mr von Wogau said that perhaps as a pilot project a pension fund could be used to show how quickly these procedures could be used.
Certainly, the Commission would like to see the pension fund directive become a reality as soon as possible.
<P>
However, certain articles in the Treaty concerning the internal market mention directives and not regulations.
Naturally we have to stay within the confines of the Treaty, so where the Treaty says "directives" we cannot use regulations.
But I agree with Parliament that regulations are usually - although not always - faster than directives.
<P>
Mr Goebbels asked if the new procedures would speed up legislation. As I have explained, they would.
Also the comitology procedure provides for short deadlines and therefore it would also speed up the whole process.
Mr Goebbels then asked whether the Securities Committee would consist of Secretaries of State. I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
The Securities Committee has delegates coming from various Member States and it is up to the Member States to decide who represents them on that committee.
So I cannot comment on that.
As I said, Member States will nominate their own representatives. What is important is that these representatives should show a real European spirit, are prepared to work closely together and are technically competent.
<P>
I now come to the matter of transparency, which has been raised by a number of Members of Parliament.
I agree with all those who have emphasised the importance of transparency throughout the legislative process and indeed the report by Mr Lamfalussy and his colleagues makes various references to the need for transparency.
The Commission wholeheartedly endorses that.
<P>
Mr Herzog said this is a cumbersome intergovernmental procedure instead of a single European regulator.
The procedures set out in this report are not intergovernmental. For example, the Securities Committee - which is an important committee in this respect - will not be a Council working group.
It will be a regulatory committee in the sense of the 1999 comitology decision; it will be chaired by the Commission.
So it is not an intergovernmental committee. The decision of the Lamfalussy committee not to propose a single European regulator at this stage is the result of a full and thorough consultation process.
As the report states, it may be necessary to look at the possibility of a single regulator when the whole procedure is reviewed in 2004 if the process that is currently proposed is not satisfactory, but not before.
<P>
Let me now answer a few points that were raised this evening. I am grateful to Mrs Villiers and Mr Medina Ortega for their kind words, although to me it is only natural that I should be present here when a subject falling within my portfolio is discussed.
<P>
Mr Medina Ortega said that the European Union's legislation is complex, which is true.
Normally there is a government and a parliament. We have a triangular relationship, the Commission, Parliament and the Council.
That makes it more difficult. The fact that there are 15 Member States further complicates the procedure.
He said that the whole system for dealing with executive measures under the comitology procedure is like the horse designed by a committee which turns out to be a camel.
Indeed there was a committee, the Lamfalussy committee. But the whole idea of a comitology procedure is to get the implementing measures through more speedily.
That is a purpose I share.
<P>
I must say, however, that the matter of secondary legislation is a very important one. In many Member States - in Germany and the Netherlands for example - there is a definite procedure for dealing with secondary legislation, which the European Union lacks.
There is no provision in the Treaty for dealing with secondary legislation in this way.
Parliament, the Council and the Commission would be well advised to think about the need for a proper system of dealing with secondary legislation.
Since this whole process will be reviewed in 2004 let us hope that at the same time we can look into the matter of secondary legislation.
Then if we manage to work out a clear plan it can be taken up in the Intergovernmental Conference which will hopefully start in 2004.
<P>
The Commission is grateful for the support Mrs Kauppi has given to the report of the Lamfalussy committee. There is no difference of opinion.
She want speedier legislation. She is right.
The Commission wants it, Mrs Randzio-Plath wants it, everybody wants it.
She gave the example of USITs, which it look a long time to agree upon.
Fortunately, agreement has now been reached but I would agree with Mrs Kauppi that it has taken a very long time.
<P>
Central to this whole discussion is the possibility of having a callback mechanism as Parliament has requested.
I do not have to explain what it is; everybody knows.
<P>
The Commission firmly believes that we ought to find a solution within the Treaty - which means Articles 202 and 211 - and that we should stay within the confines of the comitology decision of June 1999.
Therefore we cannot see our way to granting Parliament a callback possibility.
Having said that, I would ask Parliament to remember what is on the table.
Firstly, the Commission will take full account of a resolution approved by Parliament. Secondly, as Mr Cox said this afternoon, it is Parliament - and the Council - that decide on the scope of levels in implementing measures.
If the directive contains broad principles and executive measures and Parliament does not agree that a certain executive measure should be called that and relegated to level 2, then Parliament should say so and amend the directive to say that a particular implementing measure should be elevated to the status of a general principle and therefore be dealt with under level 1.
So it is in Parliament's own hands to decide on the distinction between general principles and executive measures. That is the second point.
<P>
Thirdly, if Parliament thought the Commission was abusing the system, what do you think would happen the next time the Commission made a proposal concerning a certain directive?
Parliament would surely then be in a position to say "Look, you fooled us the last time, now we are going to be extremely strict with you".
So Parliament can be certain that the next time it is dealing with a directive under this whole plan it can tighten the screws.
The Commission knows that.
So why should the Commission frustrate the wishes of Parliament by doing something that is not really proper?
That is the third point.
<P>
Fourthly, in the year 2004 there will be a review of the whole process and this - my fifth point - will be steered by the Monitoring Committee, an interinstitutional committee on which Parliament will be represented.
The Monitoring Committee will not keep silent if it thinks that the procedures are being abused and the Commission is allowing itself too much latitude.
<P>
My sixth point is Parliament can pass a resolution saying that the Commission is ultra vires, that it is going beyond what is consistent with the law.
Again, the Commission would take full account of that opinion and reconsider the whole proposal.
<P>
These six measures should allay the fear, which I understand but which is not justified, that the Commission would disregard Parliament's opinion.
The Commission cannot and will not do so.
Therefore, I do not think there are any grounds for wanting a callback possibility. I can find no provision for it in the Treaty or in the 1999 comitology procedure.
<P>
Lastly, two Members of Parliament have mentioned something they think has happened in the Council, namely that the Council wants to have a stronger position for itself than is consistent with a balanced relationship between the three institutions. I cannot speak for the Council.
The Council proceedings are not open and therefore it is very difficult to comment.
But if there should be any attempt to lower the bar of a qualified majority vote to a simple majority vote, that would meet with the strongest objections from the Commission.
After all, a single majority vote is almost never mentioned in the Treaty. We know what unanimous votes are and we know what qualified majority votes are.
Simple majority votes are perhaps used for procedural matters, but not for anything of substance.
So the Commission will firmly oppose any moves towards lowering the decision-making system from a qualified majority vote to a simple majority vote.
As I said, I cannot speak for the Council and it is only with great reluctance that I am commenting on something that may or may not be true.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=233 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Randzio-Plath">
Mr President, Commissioner, you have referred to numerous possibilities and impossibilities.
As rapporteur and committee chair, I should like to revert to the question which you did not answer and which is of crucial importance to our committee. I refer to the callback right.
No one wants to change the Treaty just now.
The point is, can we find a solution within the framework of the 1999 comitology decision?
Why not supplement Article 6 and give Parliament a guarantee which secures its callback right, Commissioner, if the Commission or the other institutions do not act as the European Parliament would wish?
I think that this would show willing on the part of the institutions and would prove that we live in a European democracy.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=234 NAME="Bolkestein">
Mr President, may I express the gratitude of the Commission for Mrs Randzio-Plath's remarks.
I reiterate that the Commission is basing itself on two particular articles in the Treaty and on the comitology decision.
When I look not so much at Article 6 but at Article 5 and Article 8 of the comitology decision, I am sorry, but I see no room for a callback procedure.
Mrs Randzio-Plath referred this afternoon to a callback procedure or equivalent measure, or words to that effect.
<P>
The Commission is here to try to find a balance and if Mrs Randzio-Plath is willing to come forward with a new suggestion, the Commission will, of course, listen to it but once again it must be within the framework of the comitology decision.
If Mrs Randzio-Plath or any other Member of this Parliament then says it is time we changed the comitology decision, I am out of my depth.
It is not within my remit tonight to pronounce on the possibility of changing the comitology decision, although if we are considering the question of secondary legislation, we might also consider comitology.
However that is a big step and I do not think I can make any comment on changes to this delicate and complicated interinstitutional balance tonight.
<P>
Once again, if Mrs Randzio-Plath wants to put forward a new proposal which we might not have considered, we will certainly look at it and try to be positive in our reply, always provided that it is within the confines of the comitology decision,
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=235 NAME="President">
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
<P>
I have received one motion for a resolution tabled pursuant to Rule 42(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
<P>
The debate is closed.
<P>
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=10>
European economy
<SPEAKER ID=236 NAME="President">
The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0082/2001) by Mr von Wogau, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the state of the European economy, report preparatory to the Commission recommendation on the broad economic policy guidelines [2001/2008(INI)].
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=237 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Karas">
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here.
He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report.
Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person.
I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening' s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago.
May I apologise on his behalf once again.
<P>
I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address.
First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced.
The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone.
Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency.
It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context.
This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment.
<P>
One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product.
Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years.
Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances - and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation - and long-term price stability.
So much for the pros.
<P>
However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States.
Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures.
<P>
The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy.
According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%.
I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures.
We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries.
I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy.
<P>
The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its "steady hand" policy has proven to be the right policy.
The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy.
<P>
We also have a few demands.
The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner.
We need to step up efforts in education and training.
We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up.
<P>
Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau' s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=238 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Mann, Thomas">
Mr President, just under nine months to go and we shall witness the birth of what is expected to be a sturdy euro, a euro that will see the light of the world of real payment transactions.
Our citizens will finally hold it in their hands.
It has all the right talents: the economic clout of 12 of the 15 Member States of the EU, low rates of inflation, falling national debts and historically low interest rates.
It will be well protected by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt am Main - which knows all there is to know about stability, and really has done what Othmar Karas said, i.e. operated a "steady-hand" policy, which is now paying off.
Anyone who has managed to withstand the pessimism, the years of being underrated like the euro has, is worth investing in.
<P>
The situation in the euro zone, with over 2.5 million new jobs in three years is good, although caution is needed in the face of the slowdown in the United States.
Growth and investment forecasts are being revised downwards everywhere.
There is the threat of weakening exports and increasing problems in funding social security systems.
The euphoria over the new economy has fallen into the abyss along with the fall in share prices.
Today it would appear that the old economy is not so old after all.
We must take strategic precautions: economic policy, monetary policy and social policy must be coordinated.
We must improve the framework conditions for innovative start ups.
We must make it easier to invest in information and communications technologies.
Now more than ever, the Member States need to get on and reform their education and training plans, which should be geared to the challenges of these new technologies and the increasing need for mobility.
Higher qualifications improve employability, especially in the knowledge society which we keep on talking about.
We also need to secure permanent and effective social protection, and this can only be done if those in political power put funding right at the top of their agenda.
<P>
The social partners' agenda needs to include maintaining jobs for older people, creating more jobs and giving employees a share in company profits.
The social market economy, which Karl von Wogau frequently refers to, is reflected in his excellent report.
We in the PPE-DE Group agreed with him unanimously.
It includes liberalisation and solidarity, competition and equal opportunities and environmentally-friendly growth.
The social market economy is more than just an economic model.
This social model will be the basis for the new European home market which Karl von Wogau has been forecasting, and that does have a future.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=239 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Êatiforis">
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am somewhat surprised to hear that the euro will be born in nine months.
I rather thought that the euro had already been born and thank goodness it has, because just imagine what would have happened between the European economies if the European currencies were still competing with each other now that the American economy has gone into decline.
But that is by the by.
<P>
As the rapporteur said, the year 2000 was a good year for the European economy, from the point of view of the rate of growth, from the point of view of price stability and from the point of view of employment.
Of course, nothing is perfect in this imperfect world and, as the rapporteur points out, the rate of inflation is set to exceed 2%, the stability criteria set by the European Bank, for the second year running, but not to a sufficiently serious extent to give us particular cause for concern.
From our point of view, we would have considered it more worthwhile to stress that, although certain progress has been and is still being made, unemployment is still at 8%, which is unacceptably high in a social market economy, the principles of which the rapporteur feels - and I agree with him - should guide our policy.
In this respect, I am surprised that, in listing the features of a social market economy, the rapporteur does not include full employment in his list, despite the fact that he comes from a country in which cooperation between companies and employees is, I think, the most advanced or one of the most advanced in Europe and does the German economy and German society proud.
<P>
As far as we are concerned, full employment should be the be all and end all of a modern economy. Not, as you might assume, for ideological reasons, although of course ideological reasons are not easily dismissed, but for reasons of competitiveness.
An economy does not become competitive merely by achieving low costs or by having leading edge technology.
Competitiveness is judged by whether it makes full use of its wealth-creating resources in comparison with other economies.
Unless it does, it will not manage to become competitive, which is precisely why full employment - and not just full employment but increasing the ratio between the adult population and the work force by 60% for women and 70% for men - is not just a social, it is primarily an economic demand, and why it is at the epicentre of the policy which was announced by the Council summit in Lisbon and which will be reiterated, I hope, at the coming Council summit in Stockholm.
<P>
We should take every opportunity to remind ourselves and the citizens of Europe that our Union has engaged in a huge economic venture in order to gain its rightful place at the economic vanguard of the world.
This venture is based on the triad of a knowledge economy, full employment and renovation of the social state.
These three factors form a unit, each feeds the other and they express the exact link between social solidarity and economic competitiveness.
Just as there is no such thing as efficient solidarity without competitiveness, competitiveness will collapse if it is not built on social solidarity.
<P>
Our rapporteur insists on the technological aspects of economic superiority.
We believe that equal weight must be given to social aspects such as equal opportunities, a fair distribution of income and closing the gap between the rich and the poor.
And if we too had made an effort to impose self-control on the markets at worldwide level, at least to the extent to which we are able to exert an influence, we would perhaps not now have reached a point at which we are threatened by the imminent economic crisis in the United States.
I do not know what happened to close Wall Street. At lunchtime it was still in free fall and it is threatening to drag us down into a slump with it.
We must protect ourselves from the extremes of a non-social economy.
If we want a social economy, we must give it real meaning, based on solidarity and the fight against speculation; words alone will get us nowhere.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=240 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Gasòliba i Böhm">
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to congratulate Mr von Wogau, on behalf of the Liberal Group and on my own behalf, and offer our support for his report on an issue which, although it is very important - the broad economic policy guidelines - is nevertheless a substitute for what we would like to see.
We have always argued that, in the Europe of the euro, there should be a genuine and well-defined leadership for economic and monetary policy.
It is well known that, at the moment, it is produced by means of negotiations between ECOFIN and the Commission, with the intervention of Parliament.
The broad guidelines are clearly a fundamental element, but - I repeat - it is still in our view a substitute for what should be a genuine economic and monetary policy at European Union level with the opportunity to act in a more direct manner.
<P>
Of the different aspects dealt with in Mr von Wogau' s report, I would like to highlight three, which, from our liberal perspective, are particularly important.
The first is to push ahead with the process of liberalisation in sectors such as telecommunications, postal services, railways, etc., sectors which still hinder the possibility of achieving higher levels of competitiveness and a single market which functions better.
This process would also, as Mr Bolkestein correctly pointed out, lead to better functioning of the single market and the disappearance of barriers within it.
This better functioning - as Parliament approved in my report on structural reforms and liberalisation - would in particular guarantee a profound reform of the labour markets, an essential element, firstly, in better adapting to the economic and social needs of European society and, secondly, in achieving what we need, that is, higher levels of productivity in order to be competitive on an international level.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=241 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Markov">
Mr President, it is true that the European economy appears to have grown quite solidly over recent years.
The main reason is the boost in exports to the US dollar area as a result of the current economic climate there and the weak euro.
So the basic principle reads: a weak euro is good for an export-oriented economy and hence good for Europe.
It is true that, at over 2%, the rate of inflation in Europe does not meet the stability criteria for the introduction of the euro, mainly as a result of higher oil prices, which are traded in dollars.
So then the basic principle reads: a weak euro is bad for the European economy.
This illustrates the absurdity of reducing economic policy measures to fiscal policy.
<P>
It is true that the number of unemployed has fallen over recent years.
But it is also true that unemployment in Objective 1 regions has not fallen, because they do not tend to have an export-oriented economy.
So we have no convergence, just continuing divergence, i.e. a deepening social divide.
It is true that investments have increased over recent years.
But it is also true that most were rationalisation and non-expansion investments and that public investment in infrastructure has fallen.
<P>
What has all this to do with a forward-looking economic policy?
The report does not contain a single proposal on strengthening domestic demand, on the specific issue of small and medium-sized enterprises, on strengthening regional economic cycles, on European tax harmonisation, on implementing the Lisbon employment summit, mentioning instead simply liberalisation, privatisation, falling social standards and the abolition of public-funded health and pension funds.
The von Wogau report must be rejected.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=242 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Ilgenfritz">
Mr President, the European economy is still doing well.
But we must admit that we did in fact expect more.
Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product.
We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives - promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates - are implemented consistently.
<P>
But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality.
Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=243 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Trentin">
Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission' s report on the state of the Union economy in 2000 and, in part, the von Wogau report itself, do not fail to underline how the halting progress of the euro has been, even in the perception of the financial markets, attributable at least in part to the absence of sufficiently coordinated action by the eurozone governments to promote a policy of economic growth and development in the field of employment.
<P>
Nor can the Central Bank take all the blame for not including the stimulus of growth and the pursuit of full employment amongst its priorities in setting interest rates, in addition to the containment of inflation.
<P>
It is now becoming clear how urgent it is to bring into being a genuine form of closer cooperation between the twelve countries of the eurozone, so as to make a qualitative leap in the coordination of financial, economic and social policies, and overcome - as was called for at the Lisbon Summit - a rigidly sectoral approach which, ultimately, confines social policies to a role of mere assistance.
<P>
That might also be the way to establish a coordinated presence of the monetary Union as such in institutional decision-making forums like the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank and, in addition, the relations of the eurozone with third countries, in particular with the producer countries of raw materials and energy sources. For example, a long-term agreement with oil producers with a controlled price in euro would be not only possible but desirable.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=244 NAME="Herzog">
Mr President, we are not having a very lively debate.
Why?
The impression we are giving is that the European Union is very passive.
There are the movements of the global market, there is the policy of the United States, and we are looking on.
With regard to these events we are far from having an economic policy. We do not have a doctrine of public economy in Europe and we are therefore a bit closeted here, I would say, in the Ministry of Words.
<P>
Allow me to make three observations.
Firstly, the analysis of economic conditions presented by the Central Bank and by the Commission could, in fact, be summed up more or less by a slowdown in the global space, even though, for us, the growth indicators are good for the next few months, that is for the coming 18 months, and do not encourage us to budge.
<P>
We are lamentably lacking initiatives to consolidate the potential and perhaps real growth of the European Union.
For my part, I would lay great stress on the need for public and private investments and on the accumulated delays in the matter of research and training.
Instead of that, the report unfortunately takes up the anti-inflationist obsession we also find in the discourse of the Central Bank, and the failure of the Galileo project would be disastrous.
<P>
Secondly, we have said that the social policy was necessary to consolidate growth.
In the words of Emilio Gabaglio, the impression is that we are witnessing a sort of derailment between Lisbon and Stockholm.
We should give concrete expression to our desire to develop knowledge and skills in the European Union in the form of a spectacular initiative.
<P>
Thirdly, we talk about an acceleration of balanced liberalisation.
The debate between competition and service of general interest has only just started.
I am convinced that the internal market will not come to fruition unless we impose obligations to provide services of general interest at the Community level.
Here too, we lack initiatives.
I hope that the next few months will prove me wrong.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=245 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Solbes">
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr von Wogau for his report, Mr Karas for his presentation and all of you for your speeches.
<P>
This year, for the first time, the procedures for debating the broad economic policy guidelines have been modified as a result of the Lisbon procedure and you have had the opportunity to introduce a Parliamentary position on this debate which should, in principle, help us to define that economic policy which you - Mr Trentin, amongst others - have referred to and to which we are not attaching sufficient importance.
<P>
We in the Commission agree with the fundamental principles contained in the report, both paragraph one and paragraph two, relating to the social market economy and an economy based on a democratic model, price stability, sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity etc., which are objectives we share fully.
<P>
I also agree with the point some of you have made in relation to the importance of this moment in time, since we are now less than 300 days away from the introduction of the euro.
However, as always, I must repeat that we often confuse the introduction of notes and coins on 1 January next year with the introduction of the euro which took place on 1 January 1999, and which has already brought us clear benefits and positive results, as some of you have pointed out.
<P>
Amongst these positive results is the healthy economic situation the European Union currently enjoys.
We must not rest on our laurels, because this healthy economic situation nevertheless masks certain deficiencies, certain problems caused by external factors, a certain lack of ambition in considering budgets and, above all, there are certain risks caused, in particular, by the development of economies such as the US economy.
<P>
In relation to this specific point, however, I would like to insist that the euro is also protecting us from the process of slowdown, which is affecting economies outside the European Union.
The Commission' s position, which is still relatively optimistic in relation to the process of growth in Europe during 2001, is based on the fact that currently we in Europe still clearly have an historic level of confidence in consumers and producers, employment is still clearly improving and inflation has reached its ceiling. In this context, we believe that the obligation of those responsible for economic policy is, above all, to maintain short-term economic expansion.
Therefore, according to our view of the issue, we insist that we need to continue to maintain a budgetary policy aimed at balancing public finances. We also believe that wage policy must be compatible with non-inflationist growth and the creation of employment and that monetary policy must remain committed to price stability.
There is no doubt that monetary policy would benefit from a coherent tax policy and greater liberalisation of the markets.
<P>
Some of you have also raised the concern that employment is the fundamental issue.
This is patently a key point.
We therefore also insist - as we have done in our presentations of reports for Stockholm - on the increase in the Union' s growth potential.
In our report on the 2000 review of the Union' s economy, the Commission studied the impact of expenditure and production in information and communication technologies and the advantages they could provide in relation to the possible increase in our growth potential.
<P>
Clearly, the structural reforms to which Mr Gasòliba referred are a fundamental point, but we must also focus on other shortcomings.
Firstly, in Lisbon we focussed on the knowledge economy as a key and fundamental element.
If we wish to make progress in this respect we must also create the right conditions for private-sector investment in research and development and in the new technologies.
We also have to improve research and, at the same time, increase professional training for the new technologies.
<P>
Structural reforms are regularly mentioned.
There is no doubt that we have made progress and that is clear from the report on the implementation of this year' s broad economic policy guidelines, but we must not view this progress as completely satisfactory.
<P>
The Commission still insists on the need to continue making progress on these issues and, as you know, the Commission just yesterday presented new proposals to move ahead on the liberalisation of the energy market.
We are aware that we have to seek a balance between liberalisation and regulation in order to achieve the best possible economic results from this process.
We also agree that we have to make progress on the whole issue of creating more efficient and more integrated financial markets.
You have just held a debate with Mr Bolkestein on the need to implement the procedures originating from the so-called Lamfalussy committee.
There is no doubt that this is a step towards speeding up the processes of liberalising the financial services, but we believe that this is not sufficient and we also have to continue to make progress in relation to risk capital and the improvement of risk capital in Europe.
<P>
The labour market must be another of our main concerns if we wish to make progress on employment.
A better combination of fiscal reforms and supply systems will certainly have a positive influence on the behaviour of the working population, as it must also help to create a better balance between wages and productivity on a local level, improve employment in certain areas and will also have a positive influence on certain factors such as the mobility of labour or better work organisation.
<P>
Another concern, which we do not believe is sufficiently highlighted in this report, concerns the problems of the long-term sustainability of public finances.
The problems relating to the ageing of the population are going to be one of the key issues and in order to deal with them we are clearly going to have to take measures on public debt and measures for improving the labour market, by achieving a greater level of activity, a greater level of employment, in particular of women and older workers, which can also help to counter some of these effects, as will reforms of the current social security systems which are coherent with employment and sustainability of the model.
<P>
I would like to thank all of you for your speeches, your comments and your positive contributions to the report, which we will take into account when it comes to drawing up our proposed broad economic policy guidelines for next year.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=246 NAME="President">
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
<P>
The debate is closed.
<P>
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=11>
Swaps arrangements and forward rate agreements
<SPEAKER ID=247 NAME="President">
The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0071/2001) by Mrs Kauppi, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 on the reclassification of settlements under swaps arrangements and under forward rate agreements [COM(1999) 749 - C5-0018/2000 - 2000/0019(COD)].
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=248 NAME="Kauppi">
Mr President, as you can see, this is not exactly a hotly debated issue in Parliament today.
When I was given this report in January 2000 I thought it might be quite easy. Unfortunately it was not.
As soon as we started the discussion in Parliament we heard from the Commission and Council representatives that there might still be some problems in the Council concerning this mainly technical initiative.
After listening to the Council's worries I decided to table some amendments to the Commission proposal in order to reach a wide consensus at first reading.
I hope these amendments are supported tomorrow by the other political groups.
<P>
This proposed regulation deals with the reclassification of settlements under swaps arrangements and under forward rate agreements.
It enables reliable comparison of government deficits within the framework of excessive deficit procedure.
It is of great importance that information on the Member States' accounts is comparable. Comparison of this information is one of the prerequisites for economic coordination in the Union.
The differing statistics on unemployment are one of the best-known examples. Different ways of compiling, calculating and documenting data on real unemployment renders comparisons between Member States difficult.
It also renders cooperation difficult. The possibility of reliable comparison of statistical information on the accounts also increases the transparency of our public administrations.
Transparency is all we demand in Parliament.
<P>
We have a saying in Finland which describes three different levels of lying. The different levels are: lies, big lies and statistics.
I hope that we in the European Parliament can prevent this from applying to statistical information within the Union.
<P>
The Commission proposal initially gave rise to concerns in the Council working group.
The majority of the delegations expressed reservations about the proposed reclassification as it could lead to changes in the level of government deficit within the framework of the excessive deficit procedure.
The proposed change would result in the effects of swaps and forward rate agreements issued by the national debt managers being excluded from the calculation of net borrowing or net lending by the public sector.
<P>
I essentially agree with the Commission proposal, as amended along the lines suggested by the national statistical experts and the Council working group.
The ECB has also approved this system of two definitions, even if they would prefer legal acts with only one definition for important statistical indicators.
Excluding swaps and forward rate agreements from the deficit calculations under the excessive deficit procedure would indeed place an unnecessary constraint on the market activities of the national debt managers.
Swaps, forward rate agreements and other financial derivatives may, in some cases, reduce the cost of government borrowing and are, as such, useful tools for debt management.
<P>
I introduced separate treatment for swaps and forward rate agreements, thus paving the way for a first reading agreement on this dossier.
My personal view is that I would not like to take this dossier to second reading or to speak on this issue again in this Chamber.
<P>
I hope this issue will be swiftly dealt with, not only in the sitting tomorrow, but subsequently in the Council.
The technical nature of this issue should make this possible.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=249 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Solbes">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank Mrs Kauppi for her work and for her explanation.
I understand that this is a very technical and complex piece of work but I would say that, ultimately, what we are dealing with is a relatively straightforward matter: changes have been made, as Mrs Kauppi explained very clearly, to the accounting criteria for the swaps arrangements and forward rate agreements.
<P>
On paper, there are arguments for and against these changes, but the introduction of the new concept and the changes made to SEC 95 in order to enable us to adapt to the criteria that are widely accepted today definitely posed a problem with regard to the system for calculating public deficits.
They also altered the figures that we had hitherto taken into consideration, which produced an imbalanced approach and those responsible for managing the public debt of the Member States have suggested that we continue with the previous system for excessive public debt.
<P>
The Commission feels that this is an acceptable approach because the alternative would be to modify the previous system.
<P>
We are not talking about deliberate, statistical lies.
We are simply talking about applying different criteria to different objectives.
In our view, the matter does not present major difficulties and will even provide greater coherence.
In the long term, we will certainly have to find a way to harmonise these two concepts, but we think that at the moment, the best approach is to maintain the criteria for excessive public deficits as they are currently applied.
<P>
In this respect, I can also inform you that the amendments tabled by the rapporteur are perfectly acceptable to the Commission.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=250 NAME="President">
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
<P>
The debate is closed.
<P>
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=12>
EU election assistance and observation
<SPEAKER ID=251 NAME="President">
The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0060/2001) by Mr Fava, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the Commission communication on EU Election Assistance and Observation [COM(2000) 191 - C5­0259/2000 - 2000/2137 (COS)].
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=252 NAME="Fava">
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, it goes without saying that we associate ourselves with the guiding spirit behind the Commission' s communication on election assistance and observation, namely the principle that encouraging genuine democracies is not only an ethical imperative but also a condition of sustainable development and lasting peace, a specific mandate of the Union in application of the Treaties, and the foundation of our foreign policy.
<P>
I would like to add that it is also something else: it is a commitment that is not formal, but is difficult, which cannot be relegated just to declarations of principle but which must be built through consistent, practical political acts.
That is therefore the role of the European Union and the European Parliament in election assistance and observation, given that free elections are a necessary precondition for democracy.
<P>
Two 1999 Council Regulations represent the legal basis for transforming our role into a substantial commitment.
In what way?
A consistent political strategy is necessary.
<P>
So far, we have chalked up eight years of totally generous election assistance and observation, often with excellent results: I refer to Zimbabwe and Russia.
However, it has been a matter of occasional interventions, so we are very much in favour of the Commission' s communication, which provides us with a coherent political strategy.
<P>
Another necessary step is to extend that strategy to every stage of the intervention in the observation which precedes and accompanies the elections, because the democratic process is not exhausted on polling day. It involves establishing the proper connections between electoral support and development aid policies, a structured relationship with the international organisations, the NGOs and civil society, not using the mechanisms of the delegation, which we have often settled for, but rather the mechanisms of genuine political cooperation.
<P>
Our report has sought to make contributions in a number of areas, first and foremost on the role of Parliament.
Under no circumstances - especially not in this specific case - can Parliament be regarded as a mere notary, called upon to ratify an electoral process or the quality of an electoral process.
<P>
Our legitimacy and our function are political in nature and our presence in the Union' s observation missions - our proper political role - can represent added value for the European Union.
So it is useful for the European Parliament to be present at every stage, including the stages preceding election observation in the strict sense, and it is desirable - where the right conditions exist - to have the European Union mission led by a Member of Parliament.
What is more, our record is excellent: our former colleague, Mr Schori, led the mission in Zimbabwe.
<P>
Moreover, political role and visibility are being won in the field, and I see them as a resource not only for Parliament but for the European Union as a whole.
<P>
Another fundamental point is the need for institutional coordination between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council.
We advocate a permanent consultation mechanism, regarding this as preferable to an interinstitutional agreement which would be more cumbersome and require very demanding inputs of time and management and implementation methods.
Taking up the suggestions of certain Members, we advocate a half-yearly timetable allowing constant monitoring of what is happening, given the very violent accelerations political history records these days.
<P>
We advocate the creation of an adequately staffed election department within the Commission, and one of our amendments calls specifically for numbers equal to the task facing the Commission.
<P>
In our opinion, a greater and different kind of flexibility in the European Union' s commitment criteria is needed.
First, elections and regional elections may not be sufficient parameters for recognising when it is appropriate to intervene. We are participating in the election observation in Peru and that is certainly not the first election.
Flexibility is definitely needed in the evaluation standards. The two words 'free and fair' do not cover everything Parliament and the European Union should focus on in their election observation activities.
<P>
This is not rigidity; it is rigour, and a necessary rigour, because what has primarily been lacking over the last few years has been rigour in choices and approaches.
Moreover, strategy consists of rules and objectives.
<P>
In conclusion, we feel - as does the Commission - that democracy is a process, not a choice made on a single day.
We know that genuine democracy in many countries starts to be built on polling day and goes on from there.
We want to continue to make our resources available, and not just economic resources but the resources of our democratic heritage and our political commitment as well.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=253 NAME="Kinnock">
Mr President, I will begin by endorsing what my colleague Mr Fava has said.
Throughout our negotiations on this issue we have had very good cooperation. He has always understood the importance of a strong development perspective since half of all the EU observer missions have been in developing countries.
And the European Union, as a multinational organisation of fifteen developed democracies, clearly has a duty as well as a significant role to play in all the global efforts to promote democratisation, sustainable development and peaceful progress.
<P>
I would like to welcome this communication from the Commission which provides the necessary clarity on these issues and a real focus on how the European Union should proceed and probably do these things better in the future.
The main point, as Mr Fava has said, is that simply holding periodic elections is not enough to guarantee democracy in any circumstances.
Elections are not just about a snapshot on a day; what is at stake is how we cover the whole electoral process.
<P>
This is the strong emphasis in the report that we are looking at this evening. It is essential that any verdict given by the European Union does not inadvertently legitimise, endorse or give any kind of support to any kind of dubious electoral process.
The phrase "free and fair" should be avoided: it is loaded vocabulary which is always ruthlessly targeted by the media in any post-election circumstances.
As the European Union's representative in Cambodia I was very well aware of how difficult that phraseology was.
It is also very important for us to emphasise the need to support domestic observer teams.
These are the key people in developing countries who understand social, political and cultural issues which we, when we parachute in to observe elections, might not be aware of.
<P>
On the Parliament: we recommend that Parliament sets up an election coordinating group able to provide much faster and more efficient responses.
I also would like to ask the Commission what resources, particularly staffing, will be dedicated to the important task of delivering the aims of this very important communication.
<P>
Finally, the European Parliament is a central player in the Union's efforts to cover elections.
Our credibility is at stake here and I welcome the opportunity offered to us by the Commission to define a very clear and shared vision of Europe's role in the democratic process in countries all over the world.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=254 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Maij-Weggen">
Mr President, first of all, I should, also on behalf of my group, like to express my appreciation for the Commission communication and for the report and attendant resolution by Mr Fava.
I welcome the fact that the European Commission has screened the EU policy on election assistance and observation and has come up with proposals for a better approach towards this policy, and for updating the same.
Too often, this policy has been referred to as ad hoc and has been associated with last-minute delegations, with little impact and visibility on the part of the Union.
In those cases where impact and visibility did form part of the package, most of the time, it was because the European Parliament had been handed the helm from a delegation - a case in point being the sterling work by Mr Gahler in Zimbabwe and by Mr Cushnahan recently.
That is why the report by Mr Fava is so significant: among other things, it draws on the European Parliament' s extensive experience, and is receiving a great deal of support from our group, partly for that reason.
All our amendments have already been approved in the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, and that is why we have not tabled any fresh amendments.
Despite this, I should like to emphasise a number of points in order to bring our position more into focus.
<P>
We support the setting up of separate election observation units at the European Commission and Parliament.
Not only should the units focus on the elections themselves, but also the period in the run-up to the elections, because it is often important to know whether candidates and parties are given fair chances before the elections.
I would in this connection refer to the recent re-election of President Museveni in Uganda: it is now no longer a secret that his rivals did not get a fair chance at all to run a campaign.
In fact, it is beyond me why, in Amendment No 1, the rapporteur and Mrs Kinnock propose to delete the phrase "whereas the election period is a democratic expression of political pluralism and must be organised in accordance with internationally recognised standards" .
I really cannot see the point of this, and we therefore oppose it.
<P>
My second point is that observers must be well prepared, so that all participants are aware of the potential problems they could run into in the country they are visiting.
This can, of course, be done by e-mail and internet, but it would be good if preparatory discussions were held in addition.
Furthermore, the delegations should preferably consist of MEPs mainly, and be sufficiently large in order to be able to gain a sound insight into the elections locally.
The members of the delegations must leave for the countries in question in good time in order to observe the electoral preparations.
They should preferably be headed by a prominent MEP or ex-MEP with sufficient clout to be able to stand up to people like President Carter, for it occasionally seems as if he is the only one who matters.
In addition, it is of course useful and necessary for the delegations to establish good working relations with other organisations, such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE.
<P>
Finally, the European Union should consider mixed observation delegations, for example involving members of parliament from the ACP countries, especially if ACP countries are at issue.
That can only benefit the strength and credibility of a delegation, and that is what it is all about.
<P>
Mr President, I should like to express our appreciation for the Commission and the rapporteur' s report, and we hope that, thanks to that report, policy in this area will really improve in the short term.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=255 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra">
Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Fava on his report, which I believe addresses a key factor in the coherence and visibility of the European Union' s external action.
I think that electoral observation and support for electoral processes are an extraordinarily important factor for bolstering the European Union' s action to protect human rights, democratic freedoms, democratic values and the rule of law.
<P>
A point that Mr Fava made very well is that we must not isolate the processes of electoral observation from their overall context.
Citizens are required, on certain occasions, to cast their vote, but the process of building democracy is a daily task.
I therefore feel that the European Union' s action must be directed at ensuring long-term democratic stability in developing countries through the efficient funding of the corresponding programmes, in which the Commission has a crucial role to play.
<P>
I should like, Mr President, to focus very briefly on the role that the European Parliament should play in these processes.
I think that paragraph 9 of the motion for a resolution contained in Mr Fava' s report very rightly emphasises the fact that, ideally, these missions should be chaired by Members of the European Parliament.
There are three basic reasons for this: first of all, the European Parliament can contribute highly relevant experience, knowledge and vision on this matter, since, as Members of the European Parliament, we have all been elected in open and democratic electoral processes in our Member States. Secondly, the European Parliament gives legitimacy to our project of integrating Europe and I think that Parliament is therefore extremely well-qualified to represent the European Union.
I would say it is better placed to do this than the national parliaments.
Thirdly, the European Parliament is ultimately one of the two branches of budgetary authority.
<P>
The European Union is the world' s largest donor of development aid and I think it is therefore appropriate that the European Parliament should have a role to play in this type of process.
I therefore hope, Mr President, that this report by Mr Fava on the Commission communication on EU election assistance and observation missions will contribute to improving the European Union' s external actions in an effective, visible and coherent way.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=256 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Van Hecke">
Mr President, it is unfortunate that free and fair elections are still not a matter of course in many countries.
Especially in Africa, elections are often accompanied by intimidation, violence, fraud or the elimination of rivals via constitutional reform, as was recently the case in the Côte d' Ivoire.
The sending of observers is therefore very useful, but can also entail risks.
Observers can be manipulated and played off against each other. They can be used as alibis to legitimise a regime which has gained power via unlawful means.
We should therefore exercise the greatest caution, both at the time when we decide to send observers and locally during their checking and reporting activities.
There is still too much improvisation going on at the moment. People are sent out without being properly briefed, knowing the background or talking the official language.
A compulsory brief beforehand is therefore a minimum requirement. It is also necessary for the different observation teams to work together more closely.
Too often, observers arrive late and leave early.
There is a great deal of manipulation before the elections, by tampering with electoral registers or the banning of meetings of the opposition.
Sometimes, the process disintegrates after the event, when a Head of State refuses to accept the outcome, as was the case in Togo.
A small nucleus of long-term observers may be able to offer a solution here.
All of this is only useful, of course, if something is actually done with the observers' reports afterwards.
In the past, economic or strategic interests have too often got in the way of the interests of democracy and human rights, unfortunately.
Let us hope that the Commission communication and Mr Fava' s excellent report will be followed up and will lead to a more coherent and consistent attitude towards undemocratic regimes.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=257 NAME="Cushnahan">
Mr President, Commissioner, I was honoured to be asked by Commissioner Patten to lead the EU electoral observation mission to Sri Lanka.
It was a challenging task and I would like to pay tribute to all the members of the team which I was privileged to lead and work with.
I would also like to acknowledge the great cooperation and support I received from the head of the EU Mission, Mr Ilkka Uusitalo, all the heads of the EU diplomatic mission as well as the government and opposition parties in Sri Lanka and particularly the Elections Commissioner.
<P>
Based upon my experiences there, I would like to make a few points in the context of the Fava report and the Commission communication, both of which I warmly welcome.
The credibility of an EU observation mission's final report will depend to a significant degree on the perceived and actual independence of its work.
It is absolutely imperative that neither the chief electoral observer nor any of the team pursues a political agenda in relation to the country they are observing.
The mission must, at all times, act independently and be seen to do so.
This means that the integrity of the team must never be compromised by actions which could be construed as having a bias towards any political party or grouping or NGO.
Furthermore, while it is important that the observation team should consult local EU diplomatic missions, it must be independent of them and EU missions must not interfere with fellow nationals or the mission as a whole.
I was fortunate that this was my experience in Sri Lanka.
<P>
It is also desirable that the composition of the EU team should not only draw upon youthful idealism and enthusiasm but should also have considerable depth and wealth of experience.
One final point I would like to make is that the value of an electoral observation exercise is seriously diminished if there is no follow-up.
If the final report of the observation mission concludes that there were serious flaws in the conduct of the election and makes recommendations as to how they can be prevented in the future, the Council and the Commission must act and both must be prepared to use sanctions in the fields of EU trade policy and donor aid to achieve this.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=258 NAME="Patten">
As Mr Fava said in his excellent introductory speech, democratic elections are the essential foundations for sustainable development, as well as of course for sustainable democracy and pluralism.
The Union supports and intends to continue supporting election processes in countries in transition towards established democracy as a key element in our external relations policy.
<P>
The Commission communication on electoral assistance and observation was a response to a request from Parliament and the speeches this evening have indicated that we responded in the right sort of way with the right observations and arguments.
The communication was designed to boost our performance in this whole area.
The case-by-case approach previously followed was, it is generally agreed, no longer acceptable. Wheels were too often reinvented and roles too often confused.
<P>
In the Commission we want to see all three institutions fully engaged in the Union's support for democratisation, so I very much welcome this report.
It is a useful complement to the communication which highlights the European Parliament's unique added value as the European Union's own democratically elected body.
I would like in particular to comment on a few issues raised by the report.
<P>
First, a few remarks on coordination and information among the European Union institutions, which I consider to be absolutely essential.
I would certainly welcome the adoption of appropriate arrangements among the European institutions to reinforce our coordination and to better define our roles and responsibilities, including the establishment of a Parliament election coordination group.
Our coordination should begin with a definition of European Union priorities, based on an exchange of views on an election calendar which the Commission now produces.
We cannot and should not observe or support every election. Human and financial resources are limited and many countries have no need for outside support.
So prioritisation is essential and Parliament should contribute to this.
A regular discussion, perhaps every six months as suggested by the report, would be very welcome.
<P>
Before we decide on how and whether to observe a particular election, exploratory needs assessment missions are now the rule.
We will share their findings with other institutions in order to involve Parliament at an early stage, as the report suggests that we should.
Such missions will determine the nature of our observation.
As stressed in the report and the communication, elections are not one-day events. Observation of the different stages of the electoral process - registration, nomination, polling, counting and appeals - are crucial.
<P>
The Commission is not interested in election tourism. Normally the advanced part of the European Union election mission will start at least five or six weeks before the polling day.
The core mission must be experienced and have appropriate technical expertise.
The involvement of members of this House in electoral observation missions plainly makes considerable sense.
As the Commission notes, MEPs, as elected representatives, have a profound knowledge of all aspects of electoral issues.
<P>
The Commission wants to cooperate fully with the Parliament in this respect and to integrate any parliamentary delegation, if it so wishes, into the European Union election observation mission.
It would also be involved in the training, briefing, de-briefing and deployment of observers.
When participating in missions observers are, of course, bound by the European Union code of conduct for electoral observation and the general principle that the European Union must speak with one voice.
So the chief observer must be the only spokesman for the EU election observation mission.
<P>
Mrs Kinnock asked how we intended to pursue this work in the Commission.
We are currently finalising a restructuring of tasks between the Europe Aid Cooperation Office, the Directorate-General for Development and my own external relations DG.
The idea is to establish, for each election in which we are involved, an election team comprising all the services concerned.
Once the restructuring is finalised we intend to inform Parliament of the exact sharing of tasks and, of course, we are prepared to provide a list of staff as Mrs Kinnock has asked.
<P>
I believe that the recent experiences where Members of this Parliament, for example Mr Schori and Mr Cushnahan, have been appointed chief observer have been extremely successful and should be repeated.
The visibility of European Union action is important. The best visibility is obtained by running an effective and professional operation.
However, the chief observer should, I would hope, be reasonably media-savvy and politically experienced.
<P>
Sustainability is important too. Support for democracy, as Parliament rightly points out, is a long-term process.
The Commission believes that the recommendations of our missions must be built into development strategies and also into our political dialogue with the country concerned.
For example, the President of Sri Lanka will be visiting President Prodi and myself later this week. We will urge her to implement the recommendations made by successive observation missions, including the one led by Mr Cushnahan, above all for the establishment of a truly independent elections commissioner.
The aim should be to promote changes and build capacity so that international observation becomes unnecessary.
<P>
On coordination with other organisations and the building up of domestic capacities, I would like to stress that the European Union has worked with many international organisations and NGOs on election assistance and observation and we intend to use the same approach in the future.
<P>
Parliament's report deals with a hugely important subject. The European Union stands above all for democracy and the values enshrined in the rule of law, pluralism and civil liberties.
We all know that democracy and democratisation, on which our development policy is largely based, are about more than just elections. But properly held and freely conducted elections are a necessary if not sufficient condition for democracy.
So it must be right for this European Union, increasingly and rightly seen as one of the bastions of democracy in the world, to devote much greater effort to promoting free and fair elections in countries where the rights which we are too often inclined to take for granted are still fragile or under threat.
<P>
I would like to congratulate Mr Fava once again on his report which offers sensible and valuable advice as to how we can raise our game in this whole area.
We look forward to working very closely with Parliament in carrying this work forward and once again I want to commend those Members of the Parliament who have already played such a distinguished role in trying to ensure that democratisation is a reality in countries all over the world.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=13>
Common strategy on Ukraine
<SPEAKER ID=259 NAME="President">
The next item is the report (A5­0083/2001) by Mr Väyrynen, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the Common Strategy of the European Union on Ukraine [C5­0208/2000 - 2000/2116(COS)].
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=260 NAME="Väyrynen">
Mr President, the European Council accepted the Union' s strategy on Ukraine in Helsinki in December 1999.
Now, more than a year later, we can say that the basic premise of the strategy is the right one.
The report that was adopted in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy only features certain proposals connected with the implementation of the strategy and some supplementary proposals.
<P>
In my report I have adopted the same general approach as Parliament did with regard to Mr Oostlander' s report as a basis for the Union' s policy on Russia.
Thus the report openly criticises Ukraine for its shortcomings regarding the implementation of democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and the market economy.
On the other hand, it recommends that the Union should improve cooperation to help Ukraine solve these problems.
<P>
Ukraine, however, is very different from Russia. It has a major strategic importance both for Russia and the West.
Ukraine is split internally.
The western parts of the country were, for a long time, part of Poland or Austria-Hungary, and there the Russian population is relatively small. The country' s central and eastern parts have long been under the influence of Russia and many Russians live there.
The Union must seek to bring about a situation where Ukraine can unify and have balanced relations with Russia, on the one hand, and the West, the European Union and NATO, on the other.
Ukraine now clearly orientates itself towards Europe. We have to encourage and support the country in this.
<P>
I have tried in my report to place Ukraine in a wider pan-European context. My basic reason for this was the views adopted in Elmar Brok' s report on enlargement.
Paragraph 56 of the report reiterates the idea of a new European area that would be based on a market economy and free trade, protection of the environment, democracy, human rights and security.
Paragraph 57 calls on the Council to develop a comprehensive pan-European policy for the Union by combining the enlargement process with the bilateral and multilateral external relations of the Union.
It goes on to propose that the EU should make systematic use of both the Council of Europe and the OSCE for preparing the present and future candidate countries for membership and for promoting the goals of the CFSP and integration on the pan-European level.
<P>
These paragraphs are, to some extent, open to interpretation.
It is clear that Parliament hopes that a comprehensive pan-European policy will be created for the Union.
But the new European area' s connection with the proposal that the Union should start using the Council of Europe and the OSCE as a tool of pan-European policy remains open to interpretation.
My own thoughts are that creating a new European area as a separate organisation could easily come into conflict with the fora that already exist. For that reason, we should first make use of existent organisations and act without prejudice in this regard.
<P>
Finally, I would like to thank the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, and, especially, the 'shadow' rapporteurs for their constructive attitude to the report.
I would like to make one criticism, however. The committee adopted too many amendments, in my opinion.
As rapporteur, I prepared a draft version which already exceeded the set length.
The 21 paragraphs of the draft contained everything that was essential, in my view.
In the vote on the report, however, 37 paragraphs in all were added - many of them against the recommendations of the rapporteur.
I think we should consider together ways of preventing adopted reports from being made too bulky or fragmented in committees and in plenary.
On this basis I am wary of amendments which would only serve to increase the report' s length.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=261 NAME="Adam">

Mr President, I very much welcome this balanced and thoughtful report. It is a report which is very well worth reading.
<P>
My first visit to Ukraine was back in 1991, soon after independence, to attend a health conference.
More recently my visits have largely centred on nuclear issues.
Last week I met a group of ten members of the Rada who were in Brussels to learn of our institutional relationships.
In all the contacts that I have made over the years I have been struck by the desire for closer links with the European Union.
Ukraine has not found the transition to a market economy an easy process.
They have yet to bring their regulatory and financial structures closer to our own.
Privatisation goes ahead slowly.
But we should look upon these efforts in positive terms and with understanding.
<P>
It is almost impossible to talk about Ukraine without reference to nuclear power.
I believe I am the only Member of this Parliament who has visited Chernobyl, Khmelnitsky and Rivne, the three stations which have featured frequently in our debates.
The latter are the two sites where reactors are now being completed to western safety standards.
But we should recognise that Ukraine also has a coal industry and is pushing ahead to promote energy efficiency and renewable sources.
Our financial support should encompass the whole sector.
<P>
Concerning the report of the European Investment Bank, I would include support for tourism and agriculture.
The latter has plummeted in recent years and both can do much to drive the economy forward.
<P>
I hope that this report will be strongly supported tomorrow and that the Members of the Rada will see in its adoption an emphatic endorsement of their wish for ever-closer relations with the European Union.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=262 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Stenzel">
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report on the common strategy of the European Union on Ukraine comes before plenary at a time when it is no longer possible to keep track of the symptoms of crisis in this huge, important country at the crossroads between east and west.
<P>
The murder of the journalist Georgiy Gongadze and the subsequent demonstrations, some of which were countered with violence, highlight the inner weaknesses and democratic deficits in this country eleven years after its secession from the Soviet Union.
The rapporteur, whom I should like to thank, is equally conscious of these facts and of Ukraine' s economic plight, with its high foreign debt and even higher exodus of capital, where large sections of the population live in poverty and wealth is concentrated in a few hands.
<P>
That this is a breeding ground for corruption and international organised crime cannot be a matter of indifference to us.
Human trafficking in general and the trade in women in particular and illegal immigration have a spill-over effect on the European Union and need to be effectively combated, with the help of the European Union, especially as, once Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania accede, Ukraine will form the external border of the EU.
<P>
The common strategy on Ukraine and the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with it rightly seek to consolidate democracy, the economy and society and bring Ukraine closer to the EU's system of values.
What has been done so far still falls short of the mark, despite the funds which the European Union has given Ukraine.
Ukraine itself has set itself the ambitious target of being ready for accession by 2007.
Even if this sounds more like pie in the sky under the present circumstances, the Väyrynen report points in the right direction by finally giving Ukraine the prospect of accession and by mooting the possibility of a free trade agreement without precluding accession at a later date.
<P>
With the enlargement of the EU imminent, everything should also be done in the form of cross-border programmes and assistance with border management in order to avoid erecting new dividing lines in Europe.
This is all the more important in that Ukraine plays a fundamental role in European security, both as a result of its commitment in ex-Yugoslavia and its involvement in the Partnership for Peace, as the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership with NATO proves.
<P>
The Ukraine also plays an important role in the network of relations between the EU and Russia and as a regional force for order.
The Väyrynen report shows how we can help Ukraine to help itself and extend our mutual relations.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=263 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Wiersma">
Mr President, the words I am about to express are intended as a token of my friendship towards the Ukrainian people.
I am aware of my responsibility as Chairman of the Interparliamentary delegation, but I also believe that it is important for us to be critical on occasions.
<P>
The EU' s common strategy with regard to Ukraine is the practical expression of a clear, political stance, namely that Ukraine forms an integral part of our continent, that welfare and stability in Ukraine have a substantial impact on welfare and stability in the rest of Europe, and that, for that reason, the European Union is willing to assume part of the responsibility for the democratic, economic and social development in that country.
That is the good news.
<P>
However, let it be clear that the European Union cannot shoulder responsibility for building up the Ukrainian state and helping that country in its socio-economic development on its own, or even take the lead in doing so.
With this common strategy, the European Union and its Member States have demonstrated their willingness to give the necessary technical and financial back-up, provided that the Ukrainian political leaders are willing, and have the courage, to take control of a process of far-reaching reform.
That is a difficult, but not impossible task.
If we are critical, we are so in the interest of Ukraine.
Our demands of that country should be the government' s own.
<P>
Part of the EU' s responsibility is also to express our concern about the issues which relate to the fundamental human rights and civil rights in that country.
This includes, among other things, the investigation into the murder of journalist Gongadze.
As Delegation Chairman and co-chairman of the EU-Ukraine cooperation committee, I have already called for further investigations, also with regard to the brutal and harsh manner in which demonstrations have been broken up in Ukraine.
<P>
Governments are not formed on the streets, but democracy can be killed off on the streets if the right to the freedom of speech is taken away from the population by means of violence.
That is the bad news.
<P>
In the capacity of Chairman of the parliamentary cooperation committee, I will presently be joining my colleagues in a trip to Ukraine, in the hope that we, partly on the basis of the report which is being discussed today and adopted tomorrow, will enter into a fruitful discussion on the issues which concern us all and about which we need to be concerned as a group.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=264 NAME="Pohjamo">
Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to congratulate Mr Väyrynen on his report. The explosive situation in Ukraine makes this report very much one of its time.
The Union now needs a clear common strategy for its policy on Ukraine. The report offers a strong foundation for that strategy.
Our group supports its main premises.
There is good reason to criticise the country for its serious shortcomings in the areas of human rights, democracy and freedom of speech, among others. There are also problems there with the implementation of a market economy.
At the same time, however, we need more effective cooperation with the Union for Ukraine to be able to solve its acute problems.
<P>
Secretary General Solana recently reminded us that Union programmes should be focused and prioritised.
The committee, however, has apparently forgotten this instruction and has overburdened the report with numerous amendments, making it unreasonably bulky and fragmented. This is something the rapporteur also referred to in his speech.
In the plenary we must prune these unnecessary amendments and focus on the essence of the issue.
<P>
In addition to ensuring that the human rights situation improves and that the rule of law takes root, the question of energy is something I would like to raise.
The worst safety problem has been eradicated, since Chernobyl was finally shut down.
It must be a condition of the Community' s financing of energy that proper care is taken of the environment and safety standards conform to western standards.
Ukraine also needs a comprehensive energy plan to which the country' s government and leaders can commit.
<P>
Cooperation and an increase in trade will require extending the trans-European transport networks as far as Ukraine. At present the plans for, and implementation of, these networks stop at the Ukrainian border.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=265 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Schroedter">
Mr President, when we talk of the strategy on Ukraine, the question of the finality of the EU resonates in the background and hence the question of whether or not Ukraine, as an important European country, has a chance of one day becoming a member of the European Union.
There are two ways of looking at this.
Either we say no, economic and trade agreements suffice, in which case the EU will only be able to make a minor contribution to stability and will be unable to apply its strict criteria.
Or we give Ukraine the long-term prospect of membership and immediately start applying a comprehensive stability strategy which, first and foremost, strengthens democracy and then leads to social and economic development.
But then Ukraine must not become the atomic dump of Europe!
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=266 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Belder">
Mr President, the current political unrest in Ukraine is extremely ill-timed.
It is precisely at this moment that the country is climbing out of an economic trough in a most spectacular manner.
The highly-charged battle surrounding President Kuchma' s direct involvement in the sinister murder of the journalist Gongadze is threatening to thwart the undeniable reform course of the Yushchenko government.
<P>
This on-going scandal is also affecting the European Union.
The clear report by Mr Väyrynen underlines the importance of the EU' s relations with its future neighbour, Ukraine.
It is in Europe' s interest to have effective democratic rule in Kiev.
And there is no sign of that yet, claims Mr Väyrynen, and rightly so.
In fact, the political pandemonium surrounding the sinister Gongadze affair has widened the chasm between Ukraine and Europe.
<P>
What can, and should, Europe do about this depressing state of affairs?
Rapporteur Väyrynen provides a realistic solution of granting European aid, as before, for actual Ukrainian reform efforts and consciously keeping the door open to full EU membership for Ukraine.
This option of entry is not least intended as a necessary incentive for the country' s reformists to persevere in their vision and policy.
<P>
Mr President, after the Soviet empire broke up, a Polish diplomat stated that if Ukraine remains independent, Russia has a chance of becoming a normal state.
This profound statement - probably a true Polish wish - is in line with the political desire of the Member States and candidate countries of the European Union.
The Väyrynen report manages to illustrate this in a realistic manner.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=267 NAME="Van Orden">
Mr President, in Parliament earlier today there was some discussion about the future shape and direction of the European Union post-Nice.
There is much about these plans and ambitions to which some of us might object, but one of the strengths of the European Union at its simplest is its role as a pole of attraction for countries that have not had the benefits of democracy, the rule of law and economic prosperity.
The prospect of European Union affiliation or membership is a great incentive for countries that have lived under communism for many generations to put their political and economic house in order and to resolve long-standing problems with neighbouring states.
<P>
In the course of this present decade Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania will become European Union Member States.
They border Ukraine, a country of enormous geopolitical significance, whose very existence is a major factor in the security and stability of Europe, but where recent developments are cause for concern.
It is in all our interests that Ukraine should be helped in its consolidation as an independent, democratic country anchored in the west but with an open, vibrant and friendly relationship with Russia to its east.
In this regard we should not forget that, in addition to its association with the European Union, Ukraine also has a strong partnership with NATO, which has contributed to the sense of security of Ukraine, as well as much-needed military reform.
<P>
Mr Väyrynen should be congratulated on an excellent report, even if it is somewhat longer than he had originally intended.
It is so important now for the European Union to improve the focus and implementation of its strategy.
<P>
Let me touch very briefly on one very specific aspect: the issue of anti-personnel landmines.
Ukraine signed the Ottawa Convention on the prohibition of the use and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines in 1999. It has yet to ratify its accession.
Meanwhile, it has the fifth largest stockpile of APL in the world, with an estimated 10 million weapons.
The Ottawa Convention places an obligation to destroy stocks of APL.
We should expect Ukraine to take action.
I hope the Commission and Council will place emphasis on this aspect in their dealings with Ukraine.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=268 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Schröder, Jürgen">
Mr President, first I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on a most balanced report and then, if I may, I should like to comment on a strategic point which particularly concerns me.
Following the political upheaval in central and eastern Europe, association agreements were concluded in a bid to help these countries one day become members of the European Community or Union.
Ukraine was not one of them.
The question of the borders of Europe, which reappeared on the agenda with the fall of the Iron Curtain, has never been seriously discussed here, and hence nor has the fate of Ukraine.
<P>
However, the answer to the question of the borders of Europe is that Europe does not end east of Bulgaria because that is where Ukraine lies, and not just Ukraine.
Europe' s borders cannot be determined unequivocally, which is why the complete enlargement of the European Union is a contradiction in terms.
The current enlargement concept will inevitably bring about new divisive borders in Europe, for example between Poland and Ukraine.
This is a huge problem, which is why we need a new concept.
Since 1989/90, Europe has no longer been politically or geographically divided; it has become an open continent.
What sort of concept do I mean?
The principle of exclusivity, whereby a candidate country is either fully assimilated into the EU or is completely excluded should be replaced by the following concept: any country which thinks of itself as either partly or wholly European, such as Ukraine, should be given the opportunity to decide if, and to what extent, it is willing and able to subscribe to European policy.
This would maintain the vision of the founding fathers of a free Europe in the dialectic sense and allow us to focus again on the crux of the matter, as formulated at the time, namely to create peace in freedom for all the nations of Europe.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=269 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Sacrédeus">
Mr President, I would like to sincerely thank Finland's former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Väyrynen, for his admirable work.
On 7 February this year, the Swedish Presidency commented on the general situation in Ukraine and, at that time, highlighted the disappearance of the journalist, Georgiy Gongadze, whose fate touches us all.
<P>
Ukraine will soon be a neighbour of the EU.
Mr Väyrynen's report deals with our immediate neighbours once the EU is enlarged.
We can see a similar development in Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, with increased political unrest, antidemocratic tendencies, economic recession, increasingly authoritarian regimes and reduced political pluralism.
As the first Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament's delegation to these three countries, I am concerned about this development.
I have had the opportunity to meet various representatives in the country, for example the young mayor, Natalia Gnatyuk, and the leader of the young people's movement of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, Andriy Yaniv.
Their message to us was: do not forget the importance of ethics and religion in our country's development.
<P>
I would like to direct two questions to Commissioner Patten, who is doing an excellent job for the EU as regards foreign policy.
Firstly, I wonder how the Tacis programme and the partnership and cooperation agreement can help to strengthen ethical and moral principles, particularly in the areas of commerce, politics and civil society - something that is necessary in a country like Ukraine.
Secondly, I wonder whether, in light of the fact that both countries are developing in the same direction, it is tenable or reasonable in the long term to treat Ukraine and Belarus as differently as we are at present.
Can we isolate one country, but not the other?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=270 NAME="Patten">
This is a good report. I congratulate the rapporteur.
It gives an impressive overview of the situation in Ukraine at a crucial juncture in the country's history.
The current events there are of deep concern to all of us.
The regrettable violence in recent days and its causes underline the present risks to the political and economic stability that are so important for Ukraine, as our common strategy makes clear.
The situation is particularly worrying, given that Ukraine will share such a long border with the European Union after the first round of enlargement.
<P>
Ukraine wants to draw closer to the European Union and its neighbours. We welcome that.
But, for that to happen, Ukraine must be able to demonstrate its willingness and ability to live up to basic values, European values, values which are also set out in our partnership and cooperation agreement. That means strengthening the rule of law.
It means making progress in the fight against corruption. It means adopting market-oriented legislation.
As the report points out, Ukraine has, alas, lost a lot of time, but it is a country with a vast potential in terms of economic and human resources.
With the creation of the government under President Yushchenko things have certainly improved but there is still very much to be done.
<P>
Several Members have referred to the Gongadze case. It has brought to the fore not just the issue of journalistic freedom but of a pluralistic society and the way executive power is exercised in Ukraine.
The House will recall that in early December, shortly after the Kuchma tapes had been presented in Parliament, the European Union expressed its deep concern about the disappearance of Mr Gongadze.
In January, President Prodi had a long conversation on this case with President Kuchma when they met in Berlin.
I am sure Parliament will have seen the statement that the Swedish Presidency released prior to the recent ministerial troika visit to Ukraine.
I was part of that troika delegation. I can assure Parliament that we made our position abundantly clear.
The only way to deal with this issue is complete transparency in the short term and adequate checks and balances in the longer term.
<P>
I want to emphasise this evening - it should not be necessary to do so - how strongly we feel about this issue.
The Swedish Presidency has included the European Union's support for the establishment of a free media in Ukraine in its working programme on the implementation of the common strategy. It will organise a seminar on independent media in Kiev.
We are also ready to provide technical assistance.
<P>
The report rightly stresses the need to promote economic growth and trade in Ukraine, but for this the conditions must be right.
Recent reports drawn up by the European Business Association, the OECD and private bodies concentrate on the overall investment climate. They make clear how far there still is to go.
In Ukraine the private sector still accounts for less than a quarter of GDP.
An EBRD study two years ago suggested that managers of Ukrainian enterprises spend up to 17% of their time just trying to find a way through regulatory requirements.
<P>
As stated in the excellent report before us, energy sector reform is absolutely crucial for economic stability and growth in Ukraine.
It is also a key condition in the memorandum of understanding of 1995 on the closure of the Chernobyl nuclear plant.
Together with our international partners we are following Ukraine's progress in reforming the energy sector very closely and we are providing substantial assistance in close cooperation with the Ukrainian authorities.
<P>
Gas and electricity market reform is also one of the priority projects in the TACIS Action Programme 2000.
I am glad that the report finds the main focus of the TACIS Programme for the Ukraine appropriate.
The report has proposed enhanced attention to certain activities.
I can confirm that a number of them are indeed being incorporated into both the TACIS Indicative Programme for 2000 to 2003 and the Ukraine Action Programme 2000. This goes for projects concerning institutional, legal and administrative reform as well as assistance for private sector development, economic development, development of NGOs and civil society.
<P>
Addressing the social consequences of transition in the health sector and the labour market is another important part of TACIS activities.
So far our cooperation has concentrated mainly on technical assistance in the area of justice and home affairs.
TACIS customs and border-crossing programmes are aimed at improving both operational capacity and the efficiency of customs and border controls to curb criminal activities.
<P>
More explicitly directed at combating organised crime is an anti-money laundering feasibility study which supports Ukraine's efforts to establish the necessary legislation and to create a financial intelligence unit.
For the future, following frequent requests from the Ukrainian side, more attention will be paid to the eastern borders of Ukraine, to control better the influx of illegal migrants who seek to enter the Union illegally.
I say to the honourable gentleman who spoke last in the debate that, as far as the overall purpose of the TACIS programmes is concerned, they do, of course, have to incorporate the ethical considerations, the democratic considerations, the market-oriented considerations to which he quite properly and quite eloquently referred.
<P>
We need to recognise and act upon the legitimate concerns in the Ukraine regarding the possible consequences of enlargement.
Overall I remain convinced that these will be largely beneficial to the Ukrainian economy but there will be problems, for example, on the movement of people between the Ukraine and its western neighbours.
We need to take the time to manage these issues so that they do not become a barrier between the enlarged European Union and our Ukrainian partners.
<P>
Mr Van Orden referred to the stockpile of anti-personnel landmines in Ukraine.
The point he makes is entirely valid.
It is one which we were recently discussing with our Canadian colleagues at the ministerial meeting between the European Union and Canada and I hope that we can make progress on that extremely important subject in the months and years ahead.
<P>
The work that we - the presidency, the Commission and Parliament - have done so far is evidence enough of the seriousness of our engagement in Ukraine.
Despite the considerable internal problems in that country, some progress has undoubtedly been achieved.
The closure of Chernobyl, for example, has marked, I hope, a turning point but we shall still be deeply involved in the follow-up.
<P>
In terms of our political agenda we can now focus on other issues: on the rule of law, on democratic checks and balances, on stimulating trade and investment, on setting the framework for cooperation in justice and home affairs and on the relationship between Ukraine and the European Union after enlargement.
This is vital work on which all the European institutions will need to concentrate in the coming years.
<P>
I congratulate the honourable Member on his report.
I rather sympathise with his view.
I do not think that it required all the subsequent authorship to which it has been subjected but he showed a good deal of long-suffering charity in his remarks, which is also not surprising.
He has written an excellent report and our relationship with the Ukraine will benefit from his wise advice.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=271 NAME="President">
Thank you very much, Commissioner Patten.
<P>
The debate is closed.
<P>
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, at 12 noon.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=14>
Organisation and management of the Internet - Policy issues 1998 - 2000
<SPEAKER ID=272 NAME="President">
The next item is the report (A5­0063/2001) by Mr Carraro, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on 'The Organisation and Management of the Internet - International and European Policy Issues 1998-2000' [COM(2000) 202 - C5­0263/2000 - 2000/2140(COS)].
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=273 NAME="Carraro">
Mr President, the report begins by welcoming the Commission' s communication, seeking, first and foremost, to take full advantage of the last few years' experience of the Internet, and hence of self-government through ICANN and its bodies.
As well as experience of self-government, there has also been experience of self-regulation, which certainly represents an excellent example of the role the Internet has been able to play in the progress of communications and the world economy over the last few years.
Even the criticism in the original outline of the report, on the need for all five continents to be represented on the governing body or on the ICANN board of directors, no longer applies, because at the very moment the initial draft appeared, the representative of the African continent was taking his seat on the ICANN board.
That is why an amendment has been tabled to paragraph 6 and a split vote is requested on paragraph 7, as part of it is now superfluous.
<P>
The report expresses our full support as regards the role the European Commission can play in terms of organisation and management of the Internet, representing all the Member States of the Union.
However, it also makes the clear recommendation that this should never take the form of interference by political authorities or, worse still, by the Commission and the European Union bureaucracies in the Internet' s governing and operational bodies, precisely because its positive experience of self-government and self-regulation must be fully respected.
<P>
Rather, the Commission is called upon to work alongside the US Government.
In recent years, the US Department of Commerce has given substantial backing and encouragement to the process of ICANN' s progressive independence from the US Government.
We therefore urge the Commission to cooperate with these positive tactics by the US Government in order to carry this process of independence and autonomy of the Internet and its governing bodies right through to a conclusion.
<P>
The key problem facing Europe, which must, of course, be dealt with by the competent party, is how to close the gap behind the United States in this sector and other more advanced parts of the world.
We therefore fully support the proposal to create the EU domain in the sector and we recommend homogeneous standards at European level on registration, protection of domain names and action to combat fraud, cybersquatting, and so on.
A homogeneous European market is no small aspiration, even for the Internet, but I think it is one of the essential conditions to guarantee development and attract investment, including investment in infrastructure which is still in deficit on the continent of Europe.
In fact, we can only have a market large enough to be competitive with North America if we have a homogeneous market.
<P>
Finally - the last point made in the report - the process of telecommunications liberalisation needs to be accelerated and completed because that is obviously closely linked to the future and the progress of the Internet on the continent of Europe.
I do not think it is necessary to say anything further on that because the Commission and Parliament have done a great deal of work in that direction in the last few months.
I not only want to acknowledge the excellent work Commissioner Liikanen is carrying out in this field. I also want to express total faith and confidence in his and the Commission' s will to bring the process to a conclusion with consistency and determination, because it will constitute another decisive thrust not only for the development of telecommunications on the continent of Europe but also for the organisation, operational stability and development of the Internet in our Member States.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=274 NAME="Harbour">
- Mr President, I would like to congratulate and indeed thank Massimo Carraro very much for an excellent report. It gets to the heart of the matter.
It is very well analysed and I would also like to thank him on behalf of colleagues on my committee for being very open to us.
We worked very closely together and I hope he feels that our committee added value to his own efforts.
<P>
I wanted to focus on a number of key issues from the point of view of the Legal Affairs Committee.
This whole issue of governance of what is becoming a crucial international resource is something that is of particular importance.
We are at a very important transitional stage where the European Union needs to play a crucial balancing role in moving the system of Internet governance from one that has been traditionally dominated by interests in the United States to becoming a truly global organisation.
The United States Government has played an important and benign role because the initial Internet developers and technologists came from a United States background.
This report quite rightly draws attention to the very crucial role that the European Union has to play in achieving this transition.
<P>
The other important issue is the role of public authorities. Clearly there is an important role for public authorities but it must not become overbearing.
International governance of the Internet owes its success so far to the fact that it is not based on complex international treaties. It has been the responsibility of a series of groups of experts.
It is very much governed by the individuals and users who are operating the system.
We should leave it that way but of course monitor it and make sure it works for the benefit of all the citizens that use it.
<P>
Alongside that, the other crucial issue for the Legal Affairs Committee is the question of domain name registrations.
This whole area is evolving very rapidly and with the development of the Internet, simple commodities like names, text, strings and characters have become very valuable.
There needs to be a body of governance which is based on competition law, to make sure that allocation is carried out in a free way and ensure that world international copyright laws protect the legitimate rights of citizens who own those names to overcome the problem which has been picturesquely described as cyber-squatting.
<P>
In conclusion, I would say that this is a very important report in an area which will become increasingly important to all of us.
Those of us that use the Internet everyday take the basic plumbing behind it for granted. But we should not do that.
We have to take a real interest in a commodity - a utility - that is going to be increasingly vital to all of us.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=275 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Rübig">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today' s headlines read "Death.com" !
The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically.
Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents.
On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used.
<P>
Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities.
The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing?
Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page?
How will we settle disputes if it comes - and it will come - to intercontinental disputes?
Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO?
I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context.
<P>
We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration.
In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=276 NAME="Paasilinna">
Mr President, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr Carraro, for this competently prepared and timely report.
This ICANN manoeuvres the Internet' s information channels and determines who has the use of addresses and how they might achieve this.
Whole countries can fall foul of the organisation' s tyranny and be cut off from information if they do not agree to play the game.
Companies' profits can dive if a letter or dot is put in the wrong place.
The organisation' s power now extends to copyright and consumer matters, and that power is growing all the time.
But the organisation is supervised by no one and responsible to no one.
This is a peculiar combination!
Recently there was a vote to increase the Board of Directors to nineteen members. Of the three billion of those entitled to vote in the network vote, just seventy-six thousand did.
It is a strange game!
This is an incredibly undemocratic system in an incredibly important role.
<P>
The Commission has quite rightly taken action, and so it must. But we need something more.
ICANN cannot be the administrative organ of the networked world or its nerve centre without having any responsibility, led by a random group of people. Surely somebody must be responsible for something.
I would nevertheless like to thank the Commission and Mr Liikanen, who has worked hard to produce an excellent document for the Stockholm Summit at this serious point in time, which Mr Carraro, among others, referred to.
It is an important contribution, and it will give hope to the IT sector in its proposal for measures that would make it easier for companies to function, increase employment and, as a result, boost European competitiveness.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=277 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Thors">
Mr President, Commissioner, Parliament has reason today to be rather self-critical.
As early as 11 April 2000, the Commission submitted its communication on Internet policy 1998 - 2000 and we know that the ICANN meeting in Melbourne was concluded yesterday.
<P>
Mr Paasilinna, the Commissioner and I have had the privilege of being able to read newspapers which have reported something of what has supposedly taken place in Melbourne.
If you log on to ICANN's own home page, you find only scanty details of what has actually happened.
<P>
Has the putting of the domain names .bytes, .info and .pro into use been delayed?
Is it true that a Norwegian company has got the top domain name?
How are the negotiations going for the EU regarding our own top domain name?
<P>
Many such questions remain unanswered, and it is amazing that there is nothing to read on the matter on the net.
The Commission and the rapporteur correctly stress that openness is required in the administration.
Even Mr Paasilinna said that there could be cause for criticism in this area.
<P>
I also wonder what allies the Commission had in Melbourne.
Did we have any representatives at the meeting?
How representative can ICANN be considered to be?
The same question was asked by Mr Paasilinna.
<P>
I think that Parliament needs to take considerably greater advantage of the fact that the former Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, has been appointed to head a panel for the administration of ICANN.
We therefore have good reason to be self-critical. We have reason to consider how, for one year, we have been able to delay the handling of this matter.
We need to work more quickly.
<P>
The report raises many other important issues, including those that were debated in preparation for the summit in Stockholm.
Here, I would like to express my agreement with the words of praise directed at the Commissioner for pointing out how to launch the e-Europe programme, while at the same time the Finance Ministers are snatching away the basis for the same programme.
I am extremely grateful that the Commission and other Member States want to raise this serious issue in Stockholm.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=278 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Schröder, Ilka">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am all in favour, as the report says, of democratising the whole decision-making process in connection with the management of the Internet.
It is an important point but, unlike many of you, I am less concerned with EU location nationalism and more concerned with who can actually use Internet technology.
It is a new technology and it is only a good new technology if a lot of people can use it.
The digital divide mainly runs between north and south and this is a huge problem because in the south hardly anyone has access to the Internet.
This is why I think it is important for the EU to make a commitment to limit the north/south digital divide, for us perhaps to launch a programme for the purpose and, above all, for us to invest in public access, for example in schools and libraries.
Only then will as many people as possible be able to use the Internet in the south and only then shall we reach the point at which people can obtain information on their own initiative and develop their talents freely and without censorship, including on the Internet.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=279 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Fatuzzo">
Mr President, we are talking about the Internet and the word that springs to mind after Internet is 'surf'.
What does that word evoke?
For me it brings to mind the sea, which reminds me of Christopher Columbus.
And that is because Christopher Columbus was, as you know, born in Genoa. He was Genoese, not Portuguese.
The tie I am wearing this evening bears the emblem of the city of Genoa, so I could hardly refrain from speaking on such an important matter.
<P>
I have asked to speak, Mr President, to point out that there is also a social Internet, not just a commercial Internet.
The social Internet means that, thanks to the computer and the Web, adults, older people and pensioners can continue to learn, be informed, and achieve that famous lifelong learning.
<P>
Secondly, the Internet provides an opportunity for disabled people to work. Someone who cannot walk can perfectly easily work on the Internet, and so overcome his disability.
<P>
Thirdly, computers installed in rest homes and linked to the Internet make it possible for sick and elderly people who cannot move to talk with their families, their children and their friends, and go on living in the world, so to speak, even if they are unfortunately guests of a rest home.
<P>
So I hope this Internet board - and Europe too - will remember that, as well as the commercial Internet, there is also a social Internet for old people and pensioners.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=280 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Martin, Hans-Peter">
Mr President, the report involuntarily illustrates the extent to which the EU is lagging behind on two counts which are of crucial importance in today' s world: one is a working democracy and the other is Internet practicalities.
While we sit here discussing these issues until the witching hour, the Americans have already organised special senate hearings to look into the problems in detail.
Even as an ICANN director, having been elected a few weeks ago, I am having trouble finding out exactly what ICANN does.
We simply do not take time to stop and think about it.
<P>
A few technical points have been addressed.
I completely fail to understand why this Commission does not publicly stand up for the fact that we have dot kids, we have dot sex, that we have detailed subdivisions which make everything we have discussed here possible, a clear division between e-commerce and the public sector.
The decisive move will be to cut ICANN free from this American domination, not because it is dangerous per se, but because the management of the Internet is at stake and you must do here what you normally only talk of, Commissioner, and create openness and transparency.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=281 NAME="Liikanen">
Mr President, first I would like to thank the rapporteur, Massimo Carraro, for an excellent report.
It is full of technical detail, but Mr Carraro has managed splendidly to raise the economically and politically important questions.
Malcolm Harbour also deserves our thanks for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market.
At the same time I wish to thank the members of Parliament for this debate.
There will come a time when the Internet will be spoken about by day and the Chamber will be full. For that reason I congratulate you: you are an avant-garde group in this field.
<P>
The Commission began to monitor these matters closely in 1997, when discussions started in the United States regarding the future of the management of the Internet.
The Internet' s revolutionary impact on communications generally and ecommerce in particular later confirmed the importance of this area of policy.
Numerous questions arose in connection with the development of the Domain Name System (DNS) with regard to competition, freedom of speech, consumer protection, trademarks, rights to names, the reliability and transparency of transactions, the protection of privacy, the protection of data, and so on.
The Commission agrees fully with the view expressed in the parliamentary report that these matters of public interest must be solved in a consistent and effective manner, with regard to the Internet.
<P>
At present the most important international forum, which has the powers and scope to begin discussions on these questions, is the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which is an intergovernmental organisation.
The Commission and the Member States are involved in large-scale programmes of cooperation in this area.
The main aims of the EU parties involved are to ensure that the globalisation of the management of the Internet will also continue during the term of the new American administration, and make the job of the GAC more effective in the debate on political questions.
<P>
As Mr Carraro said, relations with the USA in this field are important, when we take account of the fact that the US congress and a part of the private sector is inclined sometimes to deny or ignore the Internet' s global dimension.
We shall maintain close contact in this matter with the new American administration and we intend to send Mr Evans, US Secretary of Commerce, as soon as Parliament has voted in the report, a letter in which I shall clearly explain the interests of the EU in this field, and I shall also make known to him the content of your report.
<P>
Last October, the Council of Ministers passed a resolution on this issue.
In it the Commission was empowered to coordinate positions within the EU, pursue the EU' s interests in international contexts, and establish a private sector network to support the work of the EU in this field.
It is most gratifying that Parliament' s report should be in agreement with this policy and that the Commission' s actions have the support of both Parliament and the Council.
This is important from the point of view of how effective we can be in international arenas.
<P>
I would then like to make a few observations and comments with regard to Mr Carraro' s report and Mr Harbour' s opinion.
The report highlights the importance of defining the EU' s role, and I am happy that it expresses the desire to accord the Commission a strong position in these matters.
Similarly, I note the desire to restrict the intervention of governments in the international self-regulatory process. In this respect we must advance one step at a time and bear in mind that our goal is a truly international, balanced and impartial regulatory system.
But we have to recognise that we have not yet achieved this aim.
The US Government still has special powers and ICANN' s Board of Directors and staff are still not always necessarily aware of all the EU' s views.
For this reason, the Commission will follow the situation closely and inform our partners immediately of any problems that may crop up, for example, in the area of competition policy.
<P>
I am also ready to accept the general aims with regard to the administration of the ICANN, which have been set out in paragraph 8 of Parliament' s resolution.
In practice, however, it remains very much the task of those involved coming from the private sector and, in particular, the national ccTLD Registries, to express their views within the structure of the ICANN.
This is one reason why the Commission, back in 1997, urged players in the European private sector to get involved directly in action that would later take the shape of the ICANN process.
I have to say that this has produced some excellent results, of which it is worth mentioning Europe' s firm involvement today in ICANN' s Board of Directors and supporting organisations.
Many European organisations and companies were represented at the meeting this week in Melbourne.
Unfortunately, I still have not had access to any report on the meeting, but I will inform the members of it as soon as I do.
The delegates will have come back from Melbourne by now, but there was still nothing about it on the Internet when I left my room.
<P>
Paragraph 15 of Parliament' s resolution also refers to codes of conduct, best practice and legislation in this area.
The Internet operators and users have a lot of work to do in these areas.
The Commission obviously cannot do everything on its own.
We can take appropriate action to promote and speed up the self-regulation process with the private sector and other governments, for example, within the framework of the Governmental Advisory Committee.
<P>
I have also noticed that Parliament' s resolution expresses the will to allow Member States to take care of certain matters.
The national registries and the principles they are based on are very largely within the competence of the Member States.
The Commission, however, has sought, in unofficial working parties and in an advisory committee, to introduce jointly approved principles.
If the need arises, the Commission is obviously prepared to use its powers, for example, in the areas of internal market legislation and competition policy.
<P>
Finally, may I say that the Commission agrees with the rapporteur about the importance of liberalising the telecommunications industry and investing in the backbone Internet capacity both in Europe and internationally.
We are actively seeking, with the help of a framework research programme, both to promote the development of the second generation Internet and strengthen cross-border and international links with regard to European research networks.
<P>
Regarding the .eu proposal, it is at present being discussed by the Council and Parliament.
As soon as a legal basis is found for this, the Commission will take every practical step it can to ensure that European communities, companies and citizens have the use of this our own .eu facility, where the players will therefore obviously have to comply with European legislation, including the protection of privacy.
<P>
The Commission will notify the Council and specialists in the field in the Member States of the contents of Parliament' s report.
Thank you all once again!
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=15>
Work of ACP/EU Assembly (2000)
<SPEAKER ID=282 NAME="President">
The next item is the report (A5­0057/2001) by Mr Martínez Martínez, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the proceedings of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2000 [2000/2106)INI)].
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=283 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Martínez Martínez">
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are talking about the activity of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly in 2000 and this is perhaps a rather different type of report to those produced in previous years on this issue.
Firstly, because specific events occurred in 2000 which have had an effect on the workings and even the very identity of the Joint Assembly, but also because we deliberately wanted to give the report a somewhat innovative approach.
In addition, therefore, to the traditional reminder of hard data on the activity of the Assembly for that year, we opened a more politically-charged debate on the role of the Assembly itself and, what is more, on how we should view the role of the Members of the European Parliament in the Assembly.
<P>
In addition to any formal or legal considerations, we feel that as Members of this Parliament who are also members of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly, we are not there as individuals. We are delegates and therefore our activity within that forum must be guided and then judged by our Parliament.
We therefore believe that, from a democratic point of view, it is crucial that this annual report on what has taken place in the Joint Assembly should cease being a largely routine and bureaucratic process and become a balance of accounts presented to the European Parliament by its delegates.
Similarly, the debate on this annual report should be an opportunity for Parliament to guide the work of its representatives in the Joint Parliamentary Assembly over the coming months.
<P>
Looking at the events of 2000, what marked the year was the approval, following extremely lengthy negotiations, of the Cotonou Agreement, which ratifies the legitimacy in law of the Assembly and brings it up to the category of Joint Parliamentary Assembly.
Above all, 2000 marks a turning point in the European Union' s cooperation with the ensemble of the 77 States from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific that are already associated members.
The effective implementation of the Treaty is also, undoubtedly, the most significant development this year for the Assembly.
The catalogue of events is described in some detail in the report. There was the Abuja Summit in Nigeria in March and the meeting in Brussels in October, together with the new designation of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly.
Important events took place at those meetings, such as the general report on globalisation, the hearing on AIDS and the notable presence of President Josselin and of Commissioners Lamy and Nielson. An unfortunate problem was also encountered, however: the presence of representatives of the European Parliament in plenary, and especially in the working groups, was lower than we had hoped for.
<P>
Amongst the challenges that remain, the Treaty provides for the mobilisation of civil society, which is the collaborative fabric required for its very implementation, and here we need to consider how we can ensure that this is achieved efficiently and without confusion, putting each person in the right position for him or for her.
<P>
Another challenge is to exploit the Assembly' s huge potential for coordinating positions of the associates of the ACP and the European Union, in order to make the process of cooperation and development and the Treaty itself more effective and perhaps also to establish positions of consensus for approaches in other forums such as the WTO, for example.
One of the prime conditions for achieving this is for the European Parliament to assume full responsibility for work in the Joint Assembly and to give this work the priority it deserves.
<P>
I shall conclude by saying that in the report' s conclusions, I included a few lines on how I think the Joint Parliamentary Assembly should operate.
Of course, decisions on this fall to the Assembly itself, but Parliament has the responsibility to state its criteria in order to guide the work of its Members in this Joint Assembly.
These guidelines coincide almost entirely with the proposals that have been agreed in the Assembly' s own working group on how it should operate.
<P>
Finally, I would add that our motion for a resolution includes many amendments by Members of various groups, which all make a valuable contribution, as well as two further amendments, which were tabled in the debate in Parliament by the European People' s Party.
I would ask you to vote in favour of the former.
The latter seeks to remove a paragraph that was added to my initial proposal in an amendment by Mr Van den Bos, of the Liberal Group, which was approved in committee.
I think that this paragraph addresses a series of important issues which could be debated by the ACP-EU Assembly' s own committees and I do not think it would be useful to remove it at this stage.
It does not hold us to anything and does provide a range of interesting ideas.
I would therefore ask the PPE Group to withdraw this amendment and, if they do not do so, I would ask you to vote against it.
<P>
To conclude, I wish to thank the secretariat of Parliament' s Committee on Development and Cooperation for their considerable cooperation.
I should also like to thank my fellow members of that committee and all of you for your attention and for your votes, which I hope will be favourable tomorrow.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=284 NAME="Howitt">
Mr President, in congratulating Mr Martínez Martínez on his report I reiterate that our major achievement in the last twelve months has been to support the signing of the Cotonou Agreement, a huge restatement of Europe's commitment to development against a backcloth of globalisation and liberalisation elsewhere in international relations.
Our task now is to act as the watchdog to ensure that those mutual commitments on trade and aid are fully realised.
<P>
On trade, it remains a concern that the European Commission failed to get common agreement with our ACP partners in the run-up to the Seattle WTO meeting.
The Commission failed to consult, through the joint EU-ACP trade committee laid down in Cotonou, in recent discussions on "Everything but Arms", whilst the long-running problems over the banana regime remain unresolved.
Trade access is the key to development for our ACP partners, just as it is the acid test for Europe's genuine commitment to put development first.
<P>
On aid, it appears that the good principles for civil society participation have not yet been realised during the first programming exercise under Cotonou.
The lack of mechanisms for civil society negotiations in some ACP countries poses real problems.
The Commission, through its quality support group, we in the Joint Assembly, and not least the beneficiary governments should all uphold our responsibilities in this respect.
This is not just an issue of support for non-governmental organisations; it is also about our support for the whole principle of good governance.
<P>
On this question, there is much in the resolution to commend in relation to promoting the role of directly-elected parliamentarians within the Joint Assembly.
But just as we often debate in this Chamber problems of abuse of human rights and of conflict, let us also give positive recognition to continuing moves towards peace and democracy in many African countries.
This includes, for example, recent welcome moves to national dialogue by Joseph Kabila in the Congo, the democratic alternation of power in Cape Verde, the tentative maintenance of the peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea and, as we saw for ourselves in the Joint Assembly last year, the entrenchment of democracy in post-Abacha Nigeria.
<P>
Finally, on a lighter note, much of this may seem to be remote to Europe's citizens whose support is essential to our partnership with Africa.
So it is with great pleasure that I tell you that in my own country - the UK - this Friday, a biannual awareness and fund-raising extravaganza for Africa, called Comic Relief, will see otherwise serious citizens don red plastic noses to raise cash and a laugh in solidarity with Africa.
<P>
I, myself, will be serving quaint British cherry Bakewell tarts to users at the Suffolk Learning and Resource Centre in Bungay and will then go on to sell handshakes at 10p each to schoolchildren at the Highwood Infant School in King's Lynn, Norfolk.
And yes, I will be donning a red plastic nose in common with everyone else.
<P>
Not only should the European Parliament congratulate everyone involved, we should underline that through such creative public exercises our electors show us that they back the political commitment to development, embraced in our partnership with Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific and marked by tonight's debate.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=285 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Rod">
Mr President, the Cotonou Agreement establishes the parliamentary dimension of the Joint Assembly.
This means that only democratically elected representatives, without exception, have the right to participate and to express their views within the Joint Parliamentary Assembly.
But a single representative for each ACP country prevents opposition representatives from gaining access and expressing their views and hence obscures political pluralist expression in these countries.
<P>
Moreover, the principle of one vote for each country in the ACP group as opposed to one vote for each person on the European side is not a fair one.
The very structure of this Assembly is therefore unbalanced.
The European Parliament is an institution in its own right. The ACP group does not have an existence outside its appearance at the Joint Parliamentary Assembly and does not have an organisation in the form of political groups.
<P>
Secondly, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has taken on a new role, but decision-making powers are not everything.
It does not have the right to use European Development Funds; it does not participate in the procedure to ratify the Cotonou Agreement.
<P>
We will therefore vote for the report by Mr Martínez Martínez with conviction because it highlights these shortcomings.
But the Assembly must continue to reflect on its composition, its function and its powers so that, in 2001, it can become a joint, fair Parliamentary Assembly.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=286 NAME="Corrie">
Mr President, I hope the lack of attendance at this debate tonight is due to the late hour and not to the way in which I have chaired the two Assemblies we are talking about over the last year.
I sincerely thank the rapporteur, not just for his report and the way he has presented it tonight, but for the very hard work he does both in the ACP and in the Development Committee.
I have prepared this report twice.
I know how hard it is to find fresh ideas and yet he has come forward not only with fresh ideas but with extremely good points that we have now tried to incorporate in our rules for the future.
<P>
The past year has been a watershed for the ACP/EU partnership.
There was a lot of resistance about going to Abuja, in Nigeria last year.
But I felt that it was vitally important that we were seen to support this fledgling democracy.
That turned out to be one of the best Assemblies we have ever had.
<P>
As Mr Howitt has just said, it was very much a look back at the past and a debate about future partnership agreements.
But the real benefit of visiting these developing countries is not just the Assembly, it is speaking to people involved in development work there and speaking to those who are helped because we in Europe give that development aid.
<P>
At the Assembly in Brussels we took the first steps towards realigning the Assembly to fit the Cotonou Agreement.
As co-president I am determined we will have a workshop and not a talking-shop from now on.
We have built many of Mr Martínez Martínez's ideas into the new rules.
We are now a parliamentary assembly.
We can involve civil society - this is desperately important.
I want to see standing committees that do real work rather than the workshops that we have.
I want to see a real North-South partnership leading to poverty eradication and I want to see the assembly take a leading role in conflict prevention and conflict resolution.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=287 NAME="Nielson">
Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur for his excellent and innovative report and to congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Assembly for its hard work in the year 2000.
I am pleased to confirm that I will be attending the meeting of the Assembly in Gabon next week.
This evening I will be driving back to Brussels and flying out tomorrow morning to learn about our host country and do some political work there.
I look forward to a frank and open exchange of views with the Joint Parliamentary Assembly and I agree with the rapporteur that this exchange of views should be more than just rhetoric.
I also think that the efforts of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly in these last few years have been aimed at that.
<P>
2000 was a significant year in many ways, not least because with the signing of the Cotonou Agreement in June we entered an exciting new phase of partnership with the ACP states, one that will last for the next twenty years.
It is therefore fitting that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly should begin to reflect on how it will adapt to the changes introduced by the next agreement, particularly in promoting increased dialogue with our development partners on such topics as peace-keeping and good governance.
<P>
We are raising the level of ambition in the new Cotonou Agreement and everybody is looking at this with great excitement.
The rapporteur suggests that in this new context the Joint Parliamentary Assembly is now ready to take its place as a true parliamentary authority and welcomes the changes introduced by the Cotonou Agreement to strengthen the Assembly.
The Commission clearly supports the Assembly's wish to take on a more politically ambitious role.
This is very much in line with what we would like the Cotonou Agreement to contribute generally in North-South relations and giving that a parliamentary accent is also very desirable.
<P>
I fully agree with the rapporteur on the role that political dialogue can play in the ACP regions and countries, which can often be characterised by a climate of instability.
It is therefore important to take advantage of the possibilities for peaceful and constructive exchanges of views as part of a process of dialogue within ACP regions and countries involving government and civil society.
The report also contains many other useful suggestions that can only make the Assembly's work more interesting and efficient and the Commission awaits with anticipation the implementation of these changes.
This is a meaningful and necessary meeting-place between North and South in the world.
As Europeans we can be proud that we are able to play this role.
I am looking forward to the cooperation within this framework.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=288 NAME="President">
Thank you very much, Commissioner Nielson.
<P>
The debate is closed.
<P>
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, at 12 noon.
<P>
(The sitting was closed at 12 midnight)
<P>
