<CHAPTER ID=1>
Approval of the Minutes
<SPEAKER ID=1 NAME="President">
The Minutes of yesterday's sitting have been distributed.
<P>
Are there any comments?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=2 NAME="Kellett-Bowman">
Mr President, in yesterday's Minutes it is recorded that I abstained on Amendment No 22 on the Oostlander report.
It was my intention to vote for it.
It was a case of mea culpa rather than a faulty machine.
Please, could it be corrected.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=3 NAME="President">
It will be corrected.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=4 NAME="Wynn">
Mr President, yesterday I managed to reach the Chamber just as the Minutes were being agreed - I had been attending another meeting.
Had I been here, I would have made a correction.
Yesterday's Minutes said that we agreed Tuesday's Minutes but in fact Tuesday's Minutes were incorrect. They omitted the reference to my presentation of the discharge report on the general budget and the FED.
It was a 13-minute speech.
I may not be the world's greatest speaker but 13 minutes is quite a sizeable chunk to miss.
I should be grateful if that could be corrected in Tuesday's Minutes.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=5 NAME="President">
We take note of that.
<P>
(Parliament approved the Minutes)
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=2>
Monetary cooperation
<SPEAKER ID=6 NAME="President">
The next item is the report (A4-0053/96) by Mr Garriga Polledo, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, on the strengthening of world monetary cooperation to ensure better regulation of monetary and finance markets.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=7 NAME="Garriga Polledo">
Mr President, firstly, I regret the absence of Mr de Silguy, who kindly let me know that he could not be present; I should therefore like to welcome Mrs Wulf-Mathies.
<P>
Secondly, I should like to stress the fact that I believe that I have drawn up a consensus report.
I accepted a considerable number of amendments in committee, since I believe that a European Parliament resolution on a subject as important as this must be able to count on the support of a substantial majority of Members.
Turning to specifics, Mr President, I wish to emphasize that the main objective of this report is to put forward a joint European Union proposal for the strengthening of world monetary cooperation, and not to present proposals for the regulation of the markets - for which reason I must announce that I cannot accept the amendments tabled by the Green Group.
<P>
We take as our starting-point, ladies and gentlemen, the clear fact that the globalization of the economy and the astonishing growth of the financial markets have reduced the effectiveness of traditional economic policies and weakened the ability of national governments to define independently their macroeconomic objectives.
In 1995, for example, the value of transactions on the international foreign exchange market exceeded USD 1300 billion per day - more than twice the total currency reserves of the industrialized countries.
In twelve years, the value of transactions per day has multiplied by a factor of twenty.
<P>
The report's general thesis is that this strengthening of the international markets is positive and beneficial to national economies and the world's economic systems as a whole, as long as the mechanisms for international economic and monetary cooperation are at the same time improved, reinforced and perfected.
<P>
The international capital market enables countries with little capacity to generate domestic savings to gain immediate access to external savings - often on exceptionally favourable financial terms.
This allows such countries to finance economic development policies which they would otherwise be unable to fund.
And the conditions set by the markets in allocating these external savings are precisely those which are writ large in any manual of economic policy: that the beneficiary countries must maintain low inflation rates and carefully control their public deficits.
<P>
When national governments depart from economic orthodoxy, the markets impose the adjustments which those governments have not dared to make. And adjustments imposed by the markets generally have an unacceptable social cost, as well as provoking a disproportionate reaction which makes the economic situation of the country in question even worse: let us recall the 'tequila effect' , or the crisis in the European Monetary System.
<P>
Consequently, whilst accepting the fact that the international markets have achieved a degree of autonomy which is far greater than the ability of individual governments to influence them, the alternative which I am proposing to the House today is to strengthen international cooperation, within the existing institutional framework, and drawing on the encouraging experience of economic and monetary union.
Therefore, we are calling for the current international monetary system, based on the predominance of the dollar, to be developed into a system which incorporates other currencies - including, of course, the future euro. This would serve to minimize the risks of fluctuations in the dollar and reflect far better the make-up of international trade flows.
Furthermore, we are calling on governments to pursue exchange-rate stability, on the basis of sound monetary and fiscal policies, and to maintain low interest and inflation rates and levels of public deficit.
We are calling explicitly - within the framework of the International Monetary Fund - for the strengthening of the multilateral monitoring procedures, the reinforcement of the means for preventing financial crises, and the full provision of information to all market participants.
Finally, we are calling for the essential cooperation between the Governors of the Central Banks to be carried out under the auspices of the Bank for International Settlements.
<P>
Fundamentally, Mr President, this report seeks to suggest that the European Union's experience of making progress towards economic and monetary union through economic cooperation and through the application of convergence criteria could serve as an example on a global scale of how to strengthen monetary cooperation, with a view to achieving the general conditions for sustained, noninflationary and job-creating economic growth.
<P>
I should like to end by thanking my colleagues - especially Mrs Randzio-Plath and Mr Katiforis - for their contributions and amendments, and by reminding Mrs Wulf-Mathies that Parliament is making a formal request to the Commission to draw up a white paper on the role of the European Union, after the start of the third stage of EMU, in the world economic system.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=8 NAME="Harrison">
Mr President, this report on the strengthening of world monetary cooperation to ensure better regulation of monetary and financial markets is very timely.
After all, we in Europe recognize only too well that activity one side of the world can have profound effects elsewhere, including Europe.
I do not just refer to the collapse of Barings Bank in London, following dealings on the Singapore market, but also to the consequences which followed lower interest rates in the United States in 1995.
The Deutschmark interest rate remained high, with enormous knock-on effects on Europe's economy and its ability to climb out of its economic pause - to borrow a phrase favoured by the Commission.
<P>
If that is true in the Europe of today, imagine the situation once the Euro has entered the currency markets.
What are we to do in this new environment which will be upon us shortly?
We will need strong international cooperation, and the newly-fledged European Central Bank will need to quickly master its global, as well as its local, role.
I would suggest that part of its and the Commission's responsibilities in this new environment is to improve not just monetary cooperation in the world but also to promote greater synergy in the fiscal and economic areas.
<P>
Although the Garriga Polledo report perhaps underplays the degree of danger unleashed by liberalizing the financial markets, I believe we can support the remedies suggested by the rapporteur.
He highlights the need to put in place an effective advance warning and monitoring system; he encourages prompt and appropriate political responses; he agrees with the G7's request to the IMF to establish new procedures regarding finance mechanisms and, of course, he calls again, through the G7, for strengthening international cooperation.
To these suggestions I would add that the G3 or the G7 should not exclude other important global players, including Asia and ASEAN, whose parliamentary representatives are in conclave with Euro-MPs this morning here in Strasbourg.
<P>
Nor should we fail to remind the financial community of their own responsibilities.
The better they can regulate and monitor themselves, the better we, the politicians, will be satisfied.
The sorry story of Barings' collapse reveals all too palpably human frailty at work.
Whatever else is true, it is apparent that the internal checks and balances were not operating successfully between London and Singapore.
<P>
That brings me back to where I started.
Today's lead story in the Financial Times reports the IMF's regular world economic outlooks exhortation to Germany to cut its interest rates and so boost economic recovery.
We truly live now in an interdependent world and must reform ourselves to meet these new circumstances.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=9 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Giansily">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Garriga Polledo's report, which takes due account of both the advantages and disadvantages of the general liberalization of the capital movements and the globalization of the economy, recommends to the Commission and to the European Monetary Institute a package of measures or recommendations focusing on three themes, which we endorse. I recommend, in essence: closer cooperation in the field of economic policy between the 'big three' , in other words the United States, Japan and Germany; closer cooperation with regard to exchange rates, in particular between industrialized countries; and, finally, action to promote greater international financial stability in the context of a would be globalized economy.
This would be implemented by the use of an early-warning system, relying on the appropriate financing mechanisms and promoting the strengthening of international cooperation.
<P>
The report likewise shares the opinion of the G7 that the best way of achieving stability of exchange rates is to implement monetary and budgetary policies which are compatible with the fundamental economic parameters - and this is a good thing - for fear of exposure to the devastating and immediate effects of speculative capital movements in search of the best short-term profit.
It is true that market reaction is often the logical result of the thoughtlessness or inadequacy of the economic, monetary and even budgetary policies pursued in some quarters; the result is devaluation, which imposes a direct and heavy penalty - especially in terms of employment - on the more virtuous and stricter policies pursued by other States.
<P>
We must therefore congratulate ourselves on the results of the meeting held in Verona last weekend, following which the Finance Ministers of the fifteen States of the Union called upon the Commission to study the setting-up of a mechanism intended to counter any attempts at competitive devaluation.
There are three main lines of approach that come into question here: strengthening the present multilateral surveillance system, making payments from the Structural Funds subject to certain conditions in the event that a country fails to move with sufficient determination towards economic convergence, and, finally, setting up a fairly complex system which would deprive the defaulting State of a 'laisserpasser premium' , guaranteeing that it would receive no more money from Brussels as long as that aid - currently paid in ecus and in future to be paid in Euros - would represent a large sum in national currency after devaluation.
<P>
The operative part of the motion for a resolution contained in Mr Garriga Polledo's report, the broad lines of which we support, prompts two comments from us.
First, as regards recital No 1: it is impossible to say that the present weakness of the dollar is responsible for the appreciation of the German mark, for a very good reason: the American currency has continuously gained ground against the mark for the past year.
Secondly, the wording of paragraph 19 of the motion for a resolution is not acceptable to our group, because it requests that, via the Commission and the future European Central Bank, the European Union should be a full member of all the international institutions mentioned and that it should be involved as such, in the drawing up and taking of decisions.
<P>
I would remind you here of the content of Article 109(4) and (5) of the Treaty: ' The Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the ECB, acting by a qualified majority, decide on the position of the Community at international level as regards issues of particular relevance to economic and monetary union and, acting unanimously, decide its representation in compliance with the allocation of powers laid down in Articles 103 and 105.'
<P>
The Commission has been invited to the meeting of the G7 which is to be held in Lyons in June, but as far as I know it is not involved in the G7 meetings attended by the Finance Ministers.
We therefore need to keep out heads and not put pressure either on the course of events or on the States.
If the question should eventually arise as to whether the provisions of paragraph 19 are to be proposed and transcribed into international reality, then we shall discuss the matter again, but as far as the Treaty on European Union is concerned, this hypothetical situation cannot be taken into consideration at this stage.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=10 LANGUAGE="FI" NAME="Hautala">
Mr President, the rapporteur seems to be relying too much on the assumption that the movement of capital functions best under the current international funding systems. Nor am I sure about the Social Democrats' proposal that it would be sufficient to set up an international economic council to monitor speculation.
There is a need for a much more radical change to worldwide funding structures.
At present the sum of money changing hands throughout the world is equivalent to three times the foreign currency reserves of many industrialized countries.
Neither any national banks nor their international counterparts are capable of combating this level of speculation.
Of course the Greens too support the establishment of this type of early warning system and the strengthening of cooperation on international financial policy.
This, indeed, was proposed last year at the Halifax Summit and this is what the rapporteur is now proposing, but it is really not enough. There is a need for measures which will automatically prevent speculation, and the speculators must be made to pay for such measures.
<P>
The proposal which is urgently needed is to bring into force an international tax on speculation capital.
This was proposed as long ago as 1978 by James Tobin, who later won the Nobel Prize.
Even a very low tax, of the order of 0.5 % on the quantity of capital exchanged could have a significant effect on reducing particularly short-term placements or speculation proper.
It will not of course be easy to introduce such a tax, but it should be attempted, with a view thereby to achieving an entirely new system for the supervision of capital movements at global level.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=11 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Hory">
<SPEAKER ID=12 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Berthu">
Mr President, the Garriga Polledo report supplies an excellent analysis of the international money markets and their possibilities with regard to regulation, but it also contains a considerable surprise.
It hardly mentions the supposed stabilizing virtues of the single currency at world level.
Yet the Commission's arguments always include, prominently faced, a paragraph from which we learn that 'the single currency will contribute to greater worldwide monetary stability' .
It is hard to understand exactly what this statement is supposed to mean, and the Garriga Polledo report provides no enlightenment.
<P>
The explanatory statement, in fact, contains not a single word on the subject, while the motion for a resolution itself contains one brief reference, which is expressed as a hope rather than an argument.
In point of fact, as the report rightly stresses, the best way for a country to arrive at stable exchange rates is still for it to implement sound economic policies, without tolerances designed to facilitate that stability.
In order to achieve that objective, there is no real need for the crutch of the single currency - all that is needed is courage and discipline.
<P>
On the other hand, the report does in fact disclose a disadvantage of monetary union.
By abolishing exchange rates within the Euro zone, it will cause the disappearance of an indicator and the yardstick for the quality of national administration.
This indicator will have to be replaced by the instructions of the Council of Ministers, or the Stability Council, possibly backed up by sanctions, which will create problems of implementation far more difficult and conflict-ridden than the impersonal warnings of market forces.
<P>
However, it may unfortunately occur that currencies are lastingly undervalued or overvalued relative to the real parities of purchasing power.
In this case, international monetary cooperation should be a possibility, in order to bring the exchange rate back within an acceptable band, and it could be coordinated by the IMF, as the report rightly indicates.
But we all know that the success of this method cannot be guaranteed: the major powers are not necessarily going to be prepared to subordinate their national economic policies to the objective of maintaining their exchange rate parities, and in any case the capital flows are very often stronger than any intentions that may be expressed.
<P>
In these circumstances, once again, we deplore the fact that countries which are the victims of monetary dumping cannot, ultimately, protect themselves by means of compensatory monetary sums.
Whether this dumping is the result of the deliberate intent of a third party or of the mechanical interplay of market forces at a given moment makes no difference.
The compensatory sums would reestablish their competition and even the possibility of their implementation would surely be sufficient to produce a substantial deterrent effect.
They could also be useful in relations between European States and third countries, and within a reconstructed European monetary system, as an ultimate deterrent intended to reinforce discipline.
<P>
We regret the fact that the latest GATT negotiations do not include a monetary section, and we hope, Mr President, that further discussions on this subject will begin as soon as possible.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=13 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Schreiner">
Mr President, I too am grateful to the rapporteur for this very well presented and very effective report.
I should like to begin with one or two points of interest: the report contains some introductory remarks which provide information on the deregulation of domestic financial markets, the associated trend towards the globalization of financial and capital markets, and the liberalization of capital movements.
It also states that a free capital market ensures that savings are assigned to the most productive investments.
<P>
Some very interesting comments are made in relation to the overvaluation of the US dollar in the international economy, whereby 60 % of world currency reserves and half of all private financial wealth are invested in US dollars, even though the US economy accounts for only 20 % of total production and 14 % of world trade.
This highlights the need for Europe to act.
I certainly do not take the view that Europe's scope for taking action should be hampered by imposing a tax on speculation, as the Greens have once again proposed today: this would be tantamount to double taxation, since profits from such financial transactions will in any case be taxed as profit by the domestic financial institutions.
<P>
To my mind, this report contains three important calls: the first is for a financial system to be established which avoids inflationary or deflationary cycles, achieves a healthy balance of payments, and leads to lower interest rates and sustained, high-quality economic growth.
<P>
The second call, to curb the predominance of the US dollar, is without doubt justified, and the single currency might be of assistance here.
If all the Member States take part, the convergence criteria are met, and the citizens of Europe put their trust in the new currency, the euro could perhaps become strong enough to act as a third 'international currency' .
<P>
It is also important to bear in mind external debt and the developing countries.
I do not think there is any point, in this context, in writing off financial positions as debts which will never be repaid.
Overall, therefore, I think the report is a constructive one: it provides a good starting-point for further discussion in the various European forums.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=14 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Randzio-Plath">
Mr President, this report is a most timely one, in that immediately prior to the April meeting of the IMF and the World Bank, it once again calls for an improvement in international monetary cooperation.
The embryonic reforms of the international financial institutions have not been enough to establish an effective early-warning system, to ensure better intergovernmental harmonization, and to involve not only the G7 industrialized nations but also other countries in institutionalized cooperation.
It is therefore right to make these calls now, in view of the globalization of markets and the weakness of cooperation in this area between the governments of the major industrialized nations, as well as the technical advances in communications and the massive increase in capital movements, only 4 % of which are accounted for by the real economy and real trade.
It can thus be said that a new Bretton Woods system is even more urgently needed now than was the case when it was originally introduced.
<P>
We are all aware that such a system is no longer possible today, but because the rules of the game have changed, I believe, like my colleagues and the rapporteur, that European monetary union could allow us to apply some kind of plan for target zones or even improve monetary cooperation in this direction, once the euro becomes the second international reserve currency, since it will then be easier to see the true value of this currency.
Because after all, as the report makes clear, the US dollar accounts for 60 % of world currency reserves, which in no way corresponds to the importance of the US economy.
<P>
The European Parliament has already quite rightly called on the Commission several times to produce a white paper on monetary developments.
Today we are going further, and also asking for an assessment of the effects of monetary union on the stability of the international financial system.
This is particularly important now that there are new financial instruments on this market which can influence monetary planning, for example the blueprint for the future European Central Bank, since these new financial instruments will mean that it becomes harder to assess and manage the money supply than has hitherto been the case.
I therefore believe that we are quite right to call on the Commission to carry out further studies in this area.
<P>
What is most important of all, however, is to establish a UN Economic Council along the lines of the UN Security Council, in order to institutionalize monetary cooperation.
Clearly, it will otherwise be impossible to reconcile the different economic and financial interests of the large industrialized nations and the threshold countries, and this must be done if monetary policy is to take due account both of the requirements of countries and their peoples and the need for financial discipline.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=15 LANGUAGE="FI" NAME="Rönnholm">
Mr President, in my opinion Parliament acted responsibly when it gave the Committee on Economic Affairs the opportunity to draw up this report.
The economic cooperation which has developed has benefited nations and their citizens.
The exchange of raw materials and product information has fostered development.
The use of energy provides a good analogy for this process.
Skill in exploiting energy, consumption of and trade in raw materials have benefitted us to a great extent. Only the excessive use of energy and its various forms are causing us problems.
<P>
In the same way we may say that the liberalization of capital is positive in itself; however, the enlargement of foreign exchange markets has assumed ungovernable proportions.
When markets grow twenty-fold in ten years and daily currency movements have doubled in relation to currency reserves, we may guess what type of risks this may bring.
Our new technology makes it possible to carry out transactions at the speed of light and when speculations are added to this problem, we are really endangering the conditions for international free trade.
<P>
Common sense dictates that a change must be made.
It is also clear that the European single currency would facilitate the necessary cooperation with Japan and the United States on setting rules for the currency markets. There is frequent talk of the confidence of the citizen.
This is also an essential condition for all democracy and market economy. Therefore the world democratic governments must bring the currency markets under control.
There is no time to waste; regulation is needed above all to protect ordinary citizens and their jobs.
Their work depends on the real economy, not on speculation. Small businesses in small countries suffer especially from uncertain currency markets.
They do not have the resources or the opportunity to protect themselves. Small countries also have to increase their currency reserves many times over compared to large countries.
EMU would in these circumstances be a healthy development. It would reduce the need for these reserves and yet at the same time could increase creditability.
<P>
It is quite true that the regulation and taxation of capital movements need to be harmonised.
If the movement of capital is free, such taxation should be made compulsory.
Capital cannot be given a free ride. It must bear the social responsibility of paying tax.
But if progress is to be made in this matter we must also support the Single European Currency. Only in this way will it be possible to move forward in this area.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=16 NAME="Hendrick">
Mr President, I start by congratulating Mr Garriga Polledo on the very comprehensive and technical report before us today.
The international financial markets now play a very important role in the world economy.
The deregulation of financial markets in many member countries has meant that trillions of pounds and dollars can now flow across international borders to seek a return for those investors.
<P>
I congratulate Mr Garriga Polledo on identifying some of the major issues which affect the success or otherwise of those markets at the moment, in particular his reference to counter-cyclical action with respect to the booms and busts that the world economy has seen over many years.
It is clear that what we need is sustainable positions across the globe whether it is in the United States, Europe, Japan or indeed in the developing world.
It is clear as well that the actions of the market in the longer term will lead to lower interest rates which will make it cheaper to borrow for investment and in turn will create jobs.
<P>
I also accept some of the analysis of Mr Garriga Polledo in terms of the fact that the international monetary system needs rules.
I echo the words of Mr Rönnholm on that.
In order to create those rules it needs an institutional framework.
At the moment, as we see in Europe, the Bundesbank acts in the interest of the German economy.
We are trying to create a system where we would have a European Central Bank acting in the interests of the European economy.
We see a similar position with the US, the Japanese and the European markets acting to some extent on their own.
What we need is a system which acts in terms of the global interest and international objectives.
The only way we can do that is through rules and through international cooperation.
<P>
I also accept some of the assertions by Mr Garriga Polledo about the damage that floating exchange rates can do.
It can cause over-evaluation of currencies.
I believe that the money markets are not necessarily the best judge of real economic performance, as we have seen with the exchange rate mechanism here in Europe.
<P>
I do not necessarily believe either that intervention is the answer.
What we need is a new direction.
That new direction is cooperation.
We need a framework which will be brought into existence after stage three of monetary union.
I do not necessarily believe, as the rapporteur suggests, that the IMF and the World Bank are the best institutions to do that. But I agree that the G7 is not enough.
What we need is to include the fast-growing economies of Asia in that process and, at the same time, look at how we can involve the developing world in that process.
<P>
We need new multilateral procedures, we need cooperation because the success of the global economy and the livelihoods of many people around the world depend on it.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=17 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Metten">
Mr President, at national level we accept that markets cannot function without rules imposed by national government. Whilst national markets still functioned primarily on a national scale this worked well enough.
With the advent of the European Single Market the ability of national governments to continue imposing their own rules on markets was weakened.
Much of the internal market programme was then targeted at reproducing at European level this ability of national governments to set the rules.
<P>
On one level, however, the Member States were negligent. When capital movements were liberalized the advice of the European Parliament that instruments should be set up at European level to counter any undesired developments was ignored.
<P>
With the globalization of capital movements, resulting from the predominance of liberal thinking and technological innovation, a worldwide capital market came into being which knows no rules but its own.
In normal circumstances this seems to work reasonably well. But when these markets fall prey to speculation, there are manifestly no checks on the system.
The tidal waves then unleashed do great damage to the economy, but governments collectively and the central banks have no power to do anything about it.
The question is, should the political and nonfinancial business world resign itself to this and regard waves of speculation as merely a natural phenomenon, or not?
<P>
My Group firmly believes that efforts must be made both to regulate the financial market and to create instruments whereby waves of speculation can be prevented or checked.
The keys to this are closer cooperation between governments, especially those of the three main economic blocs, and the central banks and on the other hand the possible introduction of a tax on capital transactions.
However tricky a tax of this kind might be, its introduction depends primarily on whether or not the necessary political will is there.
Pious aspirations about reducing labour costs by taxing less can be realized in this way.
It will certainly be easier than putting a man on the moon and far more useful.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=18 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Katiforis">
Mr President, Mr Garriga Polledo has worked very conscientiously on a technically and politically difficult subject, and he deserves the congratulation of his colleagues, particularly for the broadmindedness with which he cooperated with his colleagues on the Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs.
<P>
The same cannot be said about the subject of his report, the international financial markets.
It is fashionable to hear, particularly from many on the opposite side of the House - though fortunately not from Mr Garriga Polledo himself - that we should be grateful to the international financial credit markets because they save us from the stupidity with which governments manage the economy.
The international money markets are supposed to achieve this by penalizing governments with high interest rates, currency devaluation or the flight of capital if they pursue mistaken policies, in other words policies that seem to the markets to be inflationary, or, now that most of us are implementing anti-inflationary policies, ones that do not seem sufficiently so in the eyes of the markets.
When the markets tame the budget deficits, they begin concerning themselves with broader issues such as the social state deficit forecast for the coming century, which we must also restrict or better still eliminate if they are to stop penalizing us with unjustifiably high interest rates.
<P>
The rationale of the markets has almost gone too far.
A few weeks ago, Wall Street started to fall, not because unemployment in the United States increased but because it fell.
Think what would happen to us if unemployment began to fall in Europe!
Fortunately, our conservative governments, with their employment policies, protect us from any such ill-omened development!
<P>
Ladies and gentlemen, we ought to turn the picture upside down and, one day, count the disasters heaped upon the world's economy by the deregulation of the financial markets, as it is elegantly termed, or their untrammelled action as I would call it myself.
They have created the Third World debt disaster.
Has anyone counted how much hunger, how much backwardness, how much disease, how large an increase in infant mortality Third World countries have had to suffer in order to make up for that 'slight error' by the major banks? The deregulated money markets created the SLM scandal in the United States, a scandal involving hundreds of billions of dollars that taxpayers had to pay for.
Similarly, a year ago they created the Mexico crisis even though Mexico implemented all the rules they had dictated to it.
And here, European taxpayers have also had to pay their costs.
<P>
Mr President, in today's political conditions the major conservative governments refuse to cooperate on monetary issues.
<P>
From that point of view, it is just as well that Mr Garriga Polledo's report keeps the subject open and, in common with others among us, I too would like us to take another and more effective look at the issue of controlling the international money markets.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=19 NAME="Wulf-Mathies">
Mr President, the Commission welcomes Mr Garriga Polledo's report, which recommends greater international monetary and financial cooperation.
This report has been perfectly timed to support the Commission in its efforts to improve international monetary cooperation.
In the Commission's view, and as emphasized by the rapporteur, a stable national economic policy remains a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the stability of the international monetary system.
Moreover, while the markets serve a useful purpose in imposing discipline, they can have destabilizing effects which need to be offset by international cooperation.
<P>
The Commission therefore supports the proposal that monitoring procedures should be tightened up, and believes that the European Union's experience of multilateral procedures to monitor national budgets could be of assistance in this context, for example.
As Mr Santer and Mr de Silguy have emphasized to the relevant international bodies, the IMF and the G7, increased cooperation on the macroeconomic policy front implies that all those concerned must agree on the objectives, and undertake to use the instruments which enable those objectives to be achieved.
In the short term, this is above all a matter of improved monitoring and the creation of crisis prevention mechanisms.
In the longer term, institutional reforms are needed to make it easier to step up international cooperation and enhance the coordination of macroeconomic policy.
<P>
The Commission is therefore in favour of increased cooperation between the international institutions.
One of the major challenges for international cooperation in the future will be to take more account of the interdependence not only between countries, but also between their policies.
The House is also calling for the European Union to play a greater role in international cooperation and, via the Commission and the European Central Bank, to become a full member of the international institutions concerned.
The Commission is willing to assume this role.
<P>
The question of international cooperation in the monetary arena must also be considered in the light of monetary union, which will have far-reaching consequences for the international monetary system.
It should be stressed here that the introduction of economic and monetary union should considerably improve international monetary cooperation.
First of all, the increased role of the euro as an international currency will help stabilize the international monetary system and, secondly, monetary union should give the European Union a weight and influence more in keeping with its economic importance than has previously been the case.
In this way, the Union would also be in a better position to coordinate monetary policy with its international partners and to bring about a reform of the international monetary system.
<P>
To achieve this, however, the European Union must adopt a firm and steadfast attitude towards its partners.
The practical details of the legal framework governing the monetary union's external responsibilities are currently being considered: clarification is needed of the monetary union's responsibility for external economic, financial and exchange-rate policy, and the functions of the relevant institutions need to be laid down.
It also remains to be decided how the monetary union could and should be represented in the international institutions.
The Commission's services are looking into these issues at present, and Mr de Silguy, who is unfortunately unable to be here today, will keep you informed of the progress made, as he has done in the past.
<P>
Until such time as a new framework for international monetary and financial coordination has been defined, however, it would seem premature to comment on a financial support mechanism to minimize exchange-rate fluctuations.
Finally, as far as financial monitoring is concerned, the Commission will continue to carry out its existing responsibilities.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=20 NAME="President">
The debate is closed.
<P>
The vote will take place today at 12.00.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=3>
Economic and Monetary Union
<SPEAKER ID=21 NAME="President">
The next item is the report (A4-0073/96) by Mr Walter, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, on Economic and Monetary Union and economic and social cohesion.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=22 NAME="Walter">
Mr President, Commissioner, the development of the European Union has until now revolved primarily around progress in the economic sector, and the moves towards economic and monetary union represent another important milestone on this road.
And yet, if the nations of Europe are to continue to coexist in peace, they must be guided by more ambitious goals.
This includes bringing the EU Member States closer together in terms of living standards and opportunities in the various regions.
Despite all the efforts which have been made, regional disparities in income, infrastructure and employment levels are still substantial: by comparison with Europe's ten most prosperous regions, the ten poorest regions have an average per capita income which is three and a half times lower, and an unemployment rate which is six times higher.
<P>
Economic and monetary union is a crucial and, we believe, an inalienable part of Europe's future; when it is completed, the advantages will be felt not only in prosperous regions, but in peripheral and disadvantaged ones too.
It will also help to improve the effectiveness of the Structural Funds, the Union's most important instrument of economic and social cohesion.
But both before and after EMU, the overarching aim - cohesion - must be borne in mind, and we must ensure that the effects of economic and monetary union and of cohesion policy are complementary, not contradictory.
It is therefore necessary to draw up a cohesion strategy laying down specific stages, as happened in the case of economic and monetary union.
In practice, this means that once EMU is up and running, we must first do our utmost to ensure that its foundations are stable and lasting.
This will require both the participating countries and the pre-in countries to act responsibly.
<P>
Secondly, however, we shall need to be supportive of those who are pressing on steadfastly with their sometimes difficult task of meeting the criteria.
This could perhaps be done by means of an extended instrument of solidarity like the new Cohesion Fund.
We are definitely not thinking here of financial compensation: an equal measure of solidarity must be shown by the ins and the outs.
<P>
Furthermore, if economic and social cohesion is to make progress, we shall have to define more clearly and realistically than in the past what we mean by cohesion and the adaptation of living standards in the Union.
We should consider using less rigid indicators than GDP, as at present: unemployment statistics should be included.
However, in view of the strong trend towards migration, especially in rural areas, the economic summary should also include as a criterion the actual number of jobs in a region, in other words the rate of employment.
<P>
Key factors are sustainable growth, changes in economic trends, action to prevent exclusion, and the state of infrastructure, including social and cultural infrastructure.
These indicators should also be used in developing and focusing the Union's most important instrument of cohesion, the Structural Funds, and the challenges which lie ahead of them.
The Structural Funds should therefore be reformed in order to support efforts to achieve cohesion; in other words, even in the event of the enlargement of the EU, the catching-up process of disadvantaged regions must still be possible and affordable.
<P>
We should also have the courage to set deadlines by which tangible progress is to be made.
The self-confidence shown when EMU was introduced must not be dismissed as unattainable in the case of cohesion.
A true cohesion policy, designed to dovetail with economic and monetary union and to absorb any adverse effects, will entail greater coordination in all policy areas which have a bearing on economic and social cohesion.
<P>
In a European Union with 17 million unemployed, employment policy must take top priority.
We are therefore calling for an explicit article on employment to be incorporated into the Maastricht Treaty.
An active, sustainable environmental policy must also be put in place: a healthy environment will make a major contribution to the quality of life in the regions and their attractiveness.
In terms of social policy, everyone must pull together to avoid the distortions caused by social dumping - and I say everyone, to include in particular the country which has until now been opting out.
<P>
If we add cross-border regional planning, a coherent European industrial and research policy, and the safeguarding of public services which are accessible to all, what emerges is a cohesion policy worthy of the name.
Europe will have a bright future if it can combine solidarity with reliability.
Policies to create economic and social cohesion will be the litmus test of a peaceful and united Europe.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=23 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Spindelegger">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the long-term goal must inevitably be for all Member States to take part in monetary union, and in that respect there is no conflict with the goals of greater economic and social cohesion.
Problems are more likely to arise in the short to medium term, if one acknowledges the possibility that employment might be adversely affected in countries which are not yet taking part in monetary union.
On the other hand, such short- and medium-term considerations may well have to take account of distortions or even disruptions of the internal market.
<P>
It has to be said, however, that adverse effects on employment certainly do not occur in one direction only.
We experienced this in Austria when, in 1995, our Italian neighbours devalued the lira.
It was not the case that adverse effects on employment were immediately felt in Italy - far from it.
Austria, a country with a hard currency, was the one to suffer, when millions of schillings' worth of purchasing power poured into Italy from Austria.
All I am saying is that there is no one-way street here and no automatic response, but that the effects are of many kinds and must all be taken into account.
<P>
I therefore believe that it is illogical at this stage to discuss the basis for monetary union and to ask whether the convergence criteria are correct or, as you mentioned, whether or not we need a new European industrial policy, and the inclusion of employment in the Treaty.
None of this goes far enough.
Our number one concern must be to forestall any distortions in the single market by creating a new European monetary system - an EMS II - which seeks to keep real exchange rates within a certain range.
<P>
Secondly, when overhauling the Structural Funds, I think it is important to focus on projects which are needed in order for countries not yet taking part in monetary union to meet the convergence criteria.
And thirdly, private investment must be stimulated, since this alone can create truly secure jobs.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=24 NAME="McCarthy">
Mr President, I am very pleased we have been able to have this debate today following the initiative of my own political group to draw up an own initiative report on EMU and economic and social cohesion.
The reason we wanted this was because in all the discussions we have had on EMU and the single currency, Member States and experts simply have not dealt with the regional issues.
They have only dealt with the macro-economic issues at the level of a national economy and ignored the regional impact of EMU, or have ignored the relationship between EMU and cohesion policy.
<P>
People in our industrial, declining, peripheral and rural regions need to know that EMU will have some benefit for them.
Cohesion is the overriding objective in our Treaty, it stands over and above EMU and that is why we believe that EMU and its processes and stages need to be scrutinized to see how they contribute to cohesion policy.
In this report my group has pledged its support for EMU.
We recognize the advantages due to the cuts in transaction costs, due to the harmonization of interest rates and the growth in employment potential of EMU; but we also have to say that we do not believe necessarily that EMU and social cohesion are mutually reinforcing.
They are certainly not mutually exclusive, as Mr Walter has said in his report, but we believe it will be nominal and real convergence which will support the European Union's competitiveness with the new Asian Tigers, Japan and the US.
<P>
EMU therefore needs to demonstrate that it can support, underpin and promote cohesion.
I wish to emphasize again what Mr Walter has put into his report.
He is calling for an integrated cohesion strategy which means that we include EMU, regional policies and all relevant policies in the processes of cohesion.
He is asking for flanking measures to ensure EMU and cohesion come together and we are asking also for a solidarity mechanism to protect the financial markets against speculation and to include countries wishing to come in.
It is a very relevant debate.
President Lamfalussy of the EMI spoke to Parliament's Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs on Monday and presented the annual report.
The word 'cohesion' did not pass his lips once.
It is disappointing that these issues are not dealt with as a whole and cohesive strategy.
<P>
Looking at the countries that will join EMU from the beginning, it appears that the countries on the outside may suffer punitive actions.
That is why the Walter report is such an excellent one, because it puts forward constructive policies on how we can help those countries move into EMU and into the third phase faster.
<P>
Finally, we need to step up our actions in the regions.
We need to reaffirm what was agreed at the European Council in Madrid.
We need to look at local initiatives, education, training, the organization of working time, promotion of SMEs; but above all we need to win the arguments for EMU in our regions.
This is why we need an active cohesion policy orientated towards employment and growth.
I know the Commissioner will take this forward and I ask him to do so with the incoming Irish presidency and future presidencies so that the Walter report does not lie in the filing drawer covered in cobwebs and dust.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=25 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Berend">
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, along with the completion of the internal market and the achievement of economic and monetary union, the promotion of economic and social cohesion represents one of the EU's three political priorities.
Nominal and real convergence are not two mutually contradictory goals here.
Sound public finances, stable prices, low interest rates and a stable exchange rate are preconditions for growth and employment.
EMU, with all its advantages - including in particular for social and economic cohesion - is impossible without nominal convergence.
<P>
It is therefore clear that a reduction in crippling national debt plays an important role with regard to investment, and thus employment.
Practical experience in recent years has shown that where unemployment has been tackled by increasing national debt and raising taxes, no lasting success has been achieved.
Only a stable economy, which is the crucial precondition for participating in monetary union, can create market confidence, encourage trade and investment, and hence stimulate growth and job creation.
<P>
Regardless of the agreement on the long-term goal - that all Member States should take part in EMU - a transitional phase in which some, but not all Member States take part will pose problems, as Mr Spindelegger has already mentioned.
One of the main challenges at the start of EMU will therefore be to define the relationship between the currencies of participating states and those of countries which are not participating.
<P>
The Walter report explores this problem.
The many amendments tabled by my group have, in my view, brought about some good compromises, even though not all our hopes have been fulfilled.
Let me therefore draw particular attention to two points which are of considerable importance to my group.
The first is Amendment No 9 on paragraph 22, in which we state that the current provisions of the Treaty are not inadequate and incomplete, but merely need to be strengthened and properly applied.
Furthermore, we cannot agree to an economic steering body as a counterpart of the ECB.
<P>
The second point relates to Amendment No 11 on paragraph 41, where we refer to the Ciampi report, in which leading European trade union and industrial representatives point to a direct link between public services and competitiveness, and state that greater competition in public service provision is of benefit to governments, economies and consumers.
Therefore, public services - and incidentally, the Treaty refers here to services in the general economic interest, and I think the proper terminology should be used - should not be immune to free competition on the EU market.
We cannot and do not wish to alter the Treaty; otherwise, competition would ultimately be eliminated and the market partially segmented, to the detriment of consumers.
Surely that cannot be in our interest.
I would therefore ask the House to vote in favour of our amendment on this specific point.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=26 LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Costa Neves">
Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that economic and social cohesion is one of the principles of the Treaty.
However, it must be present in all measures taken by the European Union, although the most obvious facet of this cohesion tends to be the structural funds.
We must bear in mind that this principle should not be limited to the structural funds but should be applied to all the measures taken by the European Union and also to Economic and Monetary Union.
<P>
Cohesion is not a vested interest of country A or B nor is it a vested interest, for example, of the countries which are furthest away from Community averages, but it is the vested interest of everyone.
That is the only reason why it was given so much emphasis in the Treaties.
At this point, I should like to distinguish between two aspects: first of all, that the level of cohesion cannot be measured only between countries but also between regions; secondly, that reinforcing this cohesion cannot be seen only as the co-responsibility of each Member State or only the responsibility of the European Union, but it has to be seen as shared responsibility by both.
<P>
On the other hand, we must acknowledge that economic and monetary union is one of the most ambitious projects and perhaps the one with the greatest implications for the European Union and its future.
In my opinion, a positive implication. Positive implications to take place which we feel are worth the sacrifice that we can make in order to bring about, for example, the criteria of nominal convergence, imposing discipline but also sacrifices, imposing sacrifices which are obviously heaviest for those states which are furthest away from the average Community incomes.
<P>
We have discussed both of these issues many times separately. Economic and social cohesion, on the one hand, and economic and monetary union, on the other.
But we have to see them as interlinked.
That is the great merit of this report. In other words, it has put together these two aspects of European union which we must be capable of reconciling.
In these situations, what is on the table is the fact that we are not able to choose between these two aspects, we are not able to choose between economic and social cohesion and economic and monetary union.
We must reconcile the attempt at achieving economic and social cohesion with achievement of economic and monetary union.
That is what we have to do and that is what is imposed upon us by the Treaty on European Union.
<P>
The Walter report shows us that this aim is not easy but nor is it impossible.
Moreover, if we fail to bring about this reconciliation the effects for the European Union will be disastrous.
I therefore congratulate Mr Walter on his report because I think that it has led to a very positive debate which has been open to all contributions.
In my opinion, the outcome is obviously balanced and essentially - and, perhaps, most important of all - it shows that it is possible to reconcile the two aspects, namely economic and social cohesion and economic and monetary union.
With one condition, namely that we actually do so, and in order to do so we must have a concerted strategy.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=27 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Sornosa Martínez">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, it is a matter of priority for the European Union to promote economic and social cohesion, in order to provide a guarantee for the leastdeveloped regions that in the transition to economic and monetary union, the inequalities do not increase.
Nevertheless, as Mr Walter reminds us in his excellent report, despite the efforts made and the progress achieved, the regional disparities in the Union in terms of incomes, infrastructure and levels of employment are still very wide.
<P>
We support the proposals in this motion for a resolution which are aimed at promoting solidarity, offsetting or avoiding the adverse effects of economic and monetary union and, above all, combating unemployment: cohesion and unemployment are incompatible.
Cohesion and degradation of the environment are equally incompatible.
And, to ensure adequate regional development that is geared to cohesion, there is a need to create trans-European transport, telecommunications and energy networks and a horizontal European industry in all regions, promoting and defending public services, social rights and everything that is European.
<P>
The Confederal Group of the European United Left wishes to express its concern at the dangers to cohesion which economic and monetary union involves. The present convergence criteria laid down in the Maastricht Treaty are neither compatible with the principle of cohesion, nor sufficient.
Others must be considered: convergence in terms of unit labour costs, the wage-productivity ratio, and so on.
Otherwise - and this is a serious point - the adjustments will be made, and they are already being made, at the cost of jobs.
Because, as Mr Walter points out in his report, the conclusions of the Madrid summit and other initiatives may remain empty words if they are not genuinely put into effect.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=28 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Schroedter">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report is important in that it spells out the danger that the principle of economic and social cohesion might be abandoned in the context of economic and monetary union.
Unfortunately, it is not consistent. On the one hand, it calls upon the IGC to maintain economic and social cohesion as a policy in its own right, but on the other it is inclined - more so here than in the first draft - to misuse structural policy as a carrot-and-stick approach to the consolidation of national budgets.
Although the idea of solidarity with countries which are unable or not allowed to take part in monetary union does feature prominently in the report, it is inconsistent here too, because dividing countries into first and second class in itself belies the notion of solidarity.
The effects on regional development make the downside of the planned monetary union all too clear.
Our role in Parliament is in fact to take corrective action, but Parliament too is starting to question the original principle of economic and social cohesion.
<P>
I indicated during yesterday's debate on enlargement to the east that the European Union is in urgent need of reform.
Social and ecological reform would provide an excellent opportunity to bring the economic crisis under control.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=29 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Schreiner">
Mr President, it goes without saying that this report deals with economic and social cohesion in Europe, and I believe that when reference is made to preserving the convergence criteria, it is clearly being assumed that the Commission has left itself some room for manoeuvre under the Maastricht Treaty as regards strict observance of the convergence criteria.
It cannot be said in respect of government debt and net deficits - the two points which repeatedly crop up in the debate - that the criteria have to be observed to the letter: there are phrases such as 'declined substantially and continuously' , or achieving the aim 'at a satisfactory pace' .
I believe that three points should be borne in mind when it comes to meeting the criteria on government debt and net deficits.
Firstly, the Member States should realize - or be reminded - that the only way to achieve this objective is by means of a judicious savings programme.
Quite simply, employment will suffer if budget spending on investment is reduced, if the structure of expenditure in the more unproductive sectors is not adapted to allow for privatization, if government intervention is not pruned back and wastage curtailed, if bureaucracy reigns supreme and laws continue to be passed at the drop of a hat.
<P>
Secondly, we must of course ensure that the criteria concerning government debt and net deficits really are adhered to, since otherwise EMU could become a marriage of unequal partners, and that would undoubtedly be detrimental to Europe's financial market in the long term.
Thirdly, and quite simply, there must be a guarantee that this single currency will not be imposed against the wishes of the citizens of Europe.
I am therefore firmly convinced that any country able to do so should put the question to its citizens in a referendum, to be sure that monetary union meets with the acceptance of Europe's citizens.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=30 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Frutos Gama">
<SPEAKER ID=31 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Fernández Martín">
Mr President, we debated this issue - which deeply concerns us, and is undoubtedly crucial for the future of European integration - for a whole year in the Committee on Regional Policy.
We listened to the views of many authorities in a public hearing and, finally, we adopted almost unanimously the initial report drawn up by Mr Walter.
As an indication of this unanimity, almost all the speeches that we have heard today have agreed on the fundamental issues.
<P>
Article 2 of the Treaty clearly stipulates that the establishment of a single market and an economic and monetary union must serve to promote economic and social cohesion.
It could not be any other way, and the founding texts and the numerous articles which have enlarged upon them over the years repeatedly refer to this question.
In the resolution which it adopted last month in connection with the Dury/Maij-Weggen report, the European Parliament called for the introduction of a specific chapter on economic and social cohesion, as an integral part of the acquis communautaire , as part of the discussions of the Intergovernmental Conference.
I would point out, incidentally, that the Commission unfortunately failed to make any reference to this subject in its report.
<P>
So the establishment of economic and monetary union and a single currency is an objective if not of all, then of a broad majority of the Members of this Parliament.
However, this objective - which is a priority, which can never be renounced, and so on - cannot be pursued purely on the basis of economic and monetary criteria. Rather, an attempt must be made at the same time to evaluate and alleviate the social impact of EMU, particularly with regard to employment and welfare benefits - not only in the countries of the so-called hard core, but in those countries for which economic and social cohesion is not simply a rhetorical phrase, but a challenge which must constantly be met.
<P>
Today, we are fully aware of the social costs of convergence.
On the other hand, however, we have heard no clear explanation of the measures that must be taken to offset those costs.
In this context, I briefly wish to make the following points: firstly, unless there is progress in the area of cohesion, the ultimate success of economic and monetary union cannot be guaranteed; secondly, the convergence criteria must be maintained; thirdly, the efforts to improve the coordination of economic policies at the various levels and to reinforce the principles of both subsidiarity and conditionality must be stepped up; and fourthly, the instruments of regional policy must be strengthened.
<P>
This not a simple challenge, and meeting it will be fraught with difficulties: but no one said that building Europe would be easy.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=32 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Lindqvist">
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Walter's report is an important one.
I myself am a member of the Committee on Regional Policy and of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy in which the report was discussed.
The proposals it contains to counter social dumping and strengthen regional policy and employment policy in order to counterbalance EMU are of course good ones.
Here, however, I represent opinion in the Nordic countries which is critical of EMU, Mr President.
I myself am against EMU - my group holds a different view.
<P>
The reason for my critical attitude is that the risks are too great.
EMU is a high-risk project, as the Walter report makes clear.
Sweden and the Nordic countries are vast areas and already have serious regional problems.
We are afraid that these problems will become considerably worse if EMU is implemented.
The consequences which are examined in the report are interesting to see but I consider that there is a lack of depth as regards the issue of studies of the effects on unemployment, regional balance and the environment.
Such studies on the effects of EMU on these areas, both in the long and the short term, should be conducted before EMU is implemented.
<P>
For example, what will change for the Member States when they become part of EMU - if they do so?
What instruments of control will remain at national level to deal with economic slumps, for example?
Sudden changes in, for instance, the timber industry as a result of lower prices would soon turn into a crisis in Sweden and Finland.
Will countries still be able, at national level, to pursue certain economic policies, interest and exchange rate policies, regional and labour market policies, and so on?
Or - as is the idea with EMU - will EMU and the measures which will be taken by the EU and the European Central Bank balance out these disadvantages for the individual states so that the EU can take the necessary decisions on stabilisation, in order to prevent, for example, massive economic change within a sector such as the timber industry?
I doubt it!
<P>
It would also be best if the EMU project - if it is implemented according to the current timetable - contained a description of the decision-making process.
Should decisions on EMU be taken at EU level, should they be taken here, by the people's representatives - which is unlikely to be the case according to the Maastricht Treaty - or is it the European Central Bank which should take the main decisions?
<P>
A final point on this subject: before EMU is implemented, if it is, the democratic process must be strengthened in all Member States.
I am in favour of referenda as one way of doing this and of improved activities to provide information on the advantages and disadvantages of EMU.
The present report should be seen as an initial step towards elucidating the consequences of EMU.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=33 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Ainardi">
Mr President, the report by the Committee on Regional Policy states that the less-favoured regions will derive advantages from the single currency, yet it is forced to admit that the application of the convergence criteria may slow down growth, worsen unemployment and reduce social spending.
<P>
It does not call the criteria into question, and goes no further than calling for the adoption of supporting measures to ensure that the Economic and Monetary Union is not prejudicial to economic and social cohesion.
This approach is illusory.
The allocation of structural funds has not, hitherto, done anything to reduce the regional disparities in the matter of income, infrastructure and employment which are very prevalent in the European Union, as the Committee on Regional Policy acknowledges.
<P>
The European Commission, for its part, is not prepared to hand out budgetary compensation since it purports to sanction the so-called 'cohesion' states which fail to meet the convergence criteria.
<P>
Mr Walter's report falls foul of a substantial obstacle which he cannot overcome: the incompatibility of the single currency with economic and social cohesion.
Experience shows us that the application of the nominal convergence criteria for the preparation of the single currency is nothing less than the declaration of war on employment, wages, social protection and the economy in regions which are already less favoured.
<P>
Furthermore, the European Social Observatory has recently acknowledged that the Economic and Monetary Union model inevitably carries the seeds of social deregulation.
The former Chairman of the Bundesbank, Mr Otto Pöhl, for his part recently stated that compliance with the convergence criteria was incompatible with the desire to combat unemployment.
<P>
The only means of creating jobs and ensuring genuine economic and social cohesion is to reexamine the issue of the single currency, which subjects economic policies and national budgets to the domination of the financial markets.
The social unrest in France during November and December opened the way to the financial markets by expressing the workforce's rejection of a social model based on ultra-liberalism.
By lending weight to this social movement, and prolonging it, we must help to lay the groundwork for a new type of development of society, in Europe in particular and, let me add, throughout the world.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=34 LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Lage">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a crucial issue. I am deeply sorry that the European Parliament excludes the possibility of headto-head discussions in which I, could for example, counteract the opinions of the previous speaker with whom I disagree.
This debate is a series of isolated statements without any real dialogue or thought.
But the Walter report is a noteworthy report of enormous lucidity and I am entirely in agreement with it.
<P>
A single currency will represent one of the most profound changes which Europe has undergone in recent decades.
There will be a 'before and after' in terms of the single currency.
A new ball game.
And the challenge to the poorer regions posed, in the field of the single currency, an extremely powerful challenge.
The single currency is going to be an important element of the identification of European citizens with the European Union.
In addition to its symbolic import, its cultural and psychological effects, it will imply and generate a powerful integrating logic which is going to change everything: monetary policies, economic policies and budgetary policies, etc.
<P>
Early on, the Union will have to set up a federal-type budget.
The current budget will be insufficient, too limited and restricted in terms of the implications of economic and monetary union.
Without such a federal budget the imbalances across the Union's territory might well worsen, especially when we note the so-called asymmetrical shocks which will effect certain countries and regions more than others.
That is why territorial cohesion calls for the continuation of structural policies and this itself calls for a stepping up, rather than a closing down, of structural policies.
<P>
The Union's cohesion in the broadest sense is going to depend on the single currency and it will depend on economic and monetary union, it will depend upon solidarity and generosity, it is going to call for the continuation of transfers of resources from the richest countries to the poorer countries but it will also demand of the poorest regions and countries greater responsibility and better use of those resources.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=35 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Hatzidakis">
Mr President, I think it is continually becoming easier to grasp the positive consequences of introducing the single currency: reduction of the cost of exchanges, uniform interest rates, the avoidance of inflation caused by money market crises, a boost for the competitiveness of Europe's economy, and finally, development and new job opportunities for the unemployed.
<P>
With a view to the aim of a single currency, I think we will have to insist on the application of the convergence criteria decided at Maastricht.
And we must not do this just because nominal convergence is a prerequisite for the introduction of the single currency. We must do it because nominal convergence is to a large extent a prerequisite for true convergence.
By improving the health of the weaker economies we help them in the long term to approach the stronger ones.
However, the criteria for achieving nominal convergence, however important they may be, are not enough for the achievement of true convergence.
The weaker Member States are forced to make cuts in their public expenditure and public investments in order to restrict their deficits, cuts that may make the economy healthier in the short term, but which can slow development and broaden the gap between the strong and the weaker.
<P>
The Union must therefore implement a generous policy via the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, so that the resources needed by the weaker may be found, to enable them to invest in education and training, basic infrastructure, and to modernize the structure of their economies.
<P>
Mr President, there is a risk associated with enlargement, concerning which we all of course agree in principle.
The candidate member states have low levels of development and will absorb large sums, resources which must not, however, be taken away from the weaker Member States because that would undermine all that we keep saying about economic and social convergence.
<P>
As we know, the IGC is not going to consider the problem.
To me, this seems like burying one's head in the sand, since the problem of own resources and the sufficiency of resources for the policies we announce is an issue of great importance.
We need not only a Europe institutionally equipped for enlargement, but at the same time a Europe ready to deal with the economic issues raised by enlargement itself.
It is therefore a matter of absolute priority to implement an integrated regional policy, with all the improvements demanded to make it more effective.
And among those improvements, personally I believe that we must include, first, a European policy on regional planning that will allow a global approach to the problems of development, and secondly, an integrated policy on island and remote regions, which in any case the report calls upon the Intergovernmental Conference to adopt, a thing that I think is happening for the first time in the history of the European Parliament.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=36 LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Porto">
<SPEAKER ID=37 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Theonas">
Mr President, the reality lived by Europe's citizens today, and those of the most backward areas too, confirms that economic and social cohesion is incompatible with EMU and the convergence criteria imposed by the Maastricht Treaty.
<P>
It has already been proved that the effort to fulfil the criteria for nominal convergence has negative results for development, reduces the GNP and leads to job losses on a dramatic scale.
Such a situation is politically unacceptable and economically destructive, especially for countries like my own, Greece, which are advancing at the lower speed.
<P>
Yet, the picture of negative consequences is still incomplete.
A study of the consequences of the Single Currency and the Stability Agreement for the economic and social situation, both in countries that join EMU and in those that stay outside it, would, I believe, produce new and impressive results.
Might it be that the Commission and the European Parliament too should begin working on such a study?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=38 NAME="McCartin">
Mr President, I want to thank Mr Walter for his report.
It contains a lot of ideas and useful proposals.
I think it is a good comment on regional policy and its importance within the European Union.
Economic and social cohesion is what we are trying to achieve with regional policy.
Regional policy is something we will need always.
The figure in that report that indicates that 0.4 % of GNP is devoted in the European Union to regional policy draws attention to the fact that the resources committed are quite small.
By comparison with resources in the United States of America they are quite small.
We have to recognize that if enlargement is to take place, and considering that the gap is even wider than this report says - my understanding is that the candidate countries have an average of only about 30 % of the GDP of the Cohesion Fund countries - then obviously, we are going to have to strengthen European policy considerably.
We know from historical experience that economic activity ebbs and flows and what is rich today may be poor in 50 years from now.
If we are going to have a European Union then a strong, important regional policy will be a very important component of the policies that we pursue at European level.
<P>
I would like to draw attention to the fact that the report gives us the figures for the amount of structural fund resources committed to various countries.
In the case of Ireland I think the figure is a little bit out.
It says 3.3 there, while the sixth report of the Commission on structural funds says the figure is 2.1.
Taking into account the GDP of Ireland as it is today, I think that the figure is actually on average over the six years of the programme around 2.5.
However, even that amount of money has made a big impact.
<P>
I have never accepted that Economic and Monetary Union is a threat to the peripheral regions, just as I have never accepted that the completion of the internal market was a threat to the poorer peripheral states.
Experience has shown that the internal market has helped the poorer and peripheral states to grow.
The gap between Ireland and the average European Member State has closed by 21 points; for Spain, by 7 points; and for Portugal, by 9 points.
Greece is the exception.
Our colleagues from Greece would have to explain to us why it is the exception.
Sicily also is an exception, but there is a problem there.
<P>
For the future, the sacred cow of additionality will have to be revised under new programmes.
It only complicates the whole issue.
We are saying in the structural funds that we must have additionality.
That means that most of the Member States - the poor states - will increase spending.
But as far as monetary union is concerned we are saying that they must reduce spending.
When we have a new programme we will have to look at the economic planning of the less prosperous states.
There has to be a partnership between them and the Commission.
We have to sit down and work out sensible economic plans and apply to their policies the resources that we can afford.
<P>
But the element of additionality cannot be proven in such small amounts of money spread over so many policies.
It is only wasting the time of Commission officials and obstructing the whole business of trying to evaluate what has been achieved.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=39 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Izquierdo Collado">
Mr President, I should like to begin my speech with the warm congratulations deserved by a well-drafted report such as that presented by Mr Walter.
I would also make an initial remark comparing one aspect of our situation with that of the United States.
Per capita income in the richest region in the United States, Connecticut, is twice as high as that in the poorest, Mississippi.
Per capita income in Thuringia, the poorest region in the European Union, is one sixth of that in Hamburg.
Perhaps it is realities such as these, amongst other things, which ensure that economic and social cohesion is not an incidental goal of the European Union, but an objective which is enshrined in the Treaties.
<P>
The European Parliament is calling on the Intergovernmental Conference to promote and defend economic and social cohesion as a key element of the European Union.
And we must state quite clearly that we fear that economic and monetary union may have a serious negative impact on cohesion, if the necessary accompanying measures are not taken.
<P>
I do not intend to examine the statistical details of convergence.
Let me simply point out that at the present time, the only three countries which would fulfil the convergence criteria are Argentina, Taiwan and Singapore.
I should like to know how many interpretations of the Maastricht Treaty will be made if France or Germany fail to fulfil the criteria.
It is good to provide a model of budgetary discipline - I agree with that; but it is better still to ensure that no mistakes are made with regard to convergence.
No country which has made a genuine effort to fulfil the convergence criteria should be excluded from the single currency.
That is my personal position.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=40 NAME="Malone">
Mr President, I also welcome this report and congratulate the rapporteur.
<P>
As we know, the reduction of regional disparities is one of the fundamental aims of the EU.
In fact Ireland insisted on Article 130b being inserted into the Maastricht Treaty.
The Irish economy is a very open economy and very dependent on foreign trade.
We could see that recently with regard to the beef crisis, which showed the effect on our exports and how dependent we are.
I believe the EMU will be of particular benefit to Ireland and other peripheral regions.
There has to be a balanced relationship between EMU and cohesion.
The structural funds after the year 2000 should be qualitatively and quantitatively strengthened in their third stage.
A balance must be struck between the continuing needs of the present Member States and the demands of the new Members that will join us after the next phase of enlargement.
<P>
With regard to unemployment, while I understand that there are difficulties about making it one of the convergence criteria, I believe that we should have a chapter on unemployment or employment in the new Treaty.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=41 NAME="Wulf-Mathies">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I very much welcome the European Parliament's initiative to bring economic and social cohesion back onto the European political agenda in the runup to the IGC and the transition to monetary union.
By holding the hearings on the social consequences of EMU and producing the excellent report by Mr Walter, Parliament has provided some important food for thought about the social dimension of the European Union.
<P>
The Commission's position paper of 28 February on the IGC, which sets out a clear commitment to a socially responsible model of European society, proves that you have a political ally in the Commission.
<P>
Moreover, the deliberations of the G7 countries in Lille revealed that after a decade of neo-liberal thinking, there is a growing awareness not only in Europe but around the world that competitiveness and social progress go hand in hand.
This is one crucial message contained in your motion for a resolution to which I fully subscribe.
<P>
The single European currency and the completion of the European single market are needed to ensure our competitiveness, but they must be supplemented by the European Union's third priority: economic and social cohesion.
<P>
The convergence criteria, which have been the subject of sometimes heated public debate, not only correspond to a sound economic policy, but are also necessary for cohesion.
Generally speaking, it is the weakest Member States which suffer from having to pay a risk premium on interest rates.
The effect of a sound budgetary and financial policy will be to stabilize exchange rates, causing interest rates to fall sharply in those countries - more even than in the rich industrialized countries - and this will stimulate investment.
<P>
A high degree of price stability and healthy public finances - nominal convergence, in other words - are necessary conditions for growth, but will not in themselves be sufficient to ensure real convergence of incomes between the Member States and regions.
Real convergence requires an active national and European policy to promote growth in the poorer regions.
Experience over the past two decades has shown that in the long term, devaluation does not improve the competitiveness of European countries.
The international capital markets are progressively narrowing the scope for national action; exchange-rate fluctuations caused by speculation are hampering economic growth in countries with both hard and soft currencies.
So there is a need to create an exchange- rate mechanism alongside monetary union which will stabilize the currencies of countries unable to take part in monetary union from the outset.
<P>
The Commission shares the House's wish that an agreement should be reached on exchange rates in order to foster a joint approach to stability and to prepare for the pre-ins to join the single currency as soon as possible.
<P>
Further thought must also be devoted in this context to an extension of the Cohesion Fund for the purposes of achieving the convergence criteria.
<P>
The Commission endorses many of your recommendations to the IGC, for example on employment policy, and I would point out that Mr Santer's initiative has made clear our intention to give this topic a very high profile.
I would also stress that a third of the whole Community budget is already flowing, through the Structural Funds, into projects such as the fight against unemployment.
We also share your opinion about the link between environmental and regional policy.
I am not sure whether there has been some misunderstanding on the question of public services, as the Commission's position paper made it clear that equal access by all citizens to public and community services should be regarded as fundamental to the European model of society.
This does not rule out competition either within the public service or between the public and private sectors; nor would it exclude public-private partnerships.
I think in fact that we all agree on this point.
<P>
As to future financial requirements, which are not on the IGC's agenda, I am both a little more realistic and a little more optimistic than most of today's speakers.
If the formal conditions, the desire to increase efficiency and the positive effects of cohesion policy are taken seriously, I believe it will be perfectly feasible to achieve our objectives without increasing the financial burden any further.
It is therefore important for us to unite in advancing your main demands about the future profile of cohesion policy, in particular concentration, increased efficiency, the strengthening of partnerships and the promotion of local employment initiatives.
<P>
I would end by repeating that I fully agree with your assertion that the Community's structural policy is an independent policy pursuing its own objectives beyond that of EMU.
In my view, if economic and social cohesion is to be increased, living standards in the Union must be aligned and overall economic development brought into balance.
This means more than fulfilling the convergence criteria.
It includes the creation of jobs, especially in structurally weak regions and for problem groups within the workforce; it includes sustainable development in disadvantaged regions.
I think it is important that the House should continue to highlight these factors in the forthcoming debate, because the European model of society demands that economic efficiency should be in tune with social cohesion, and it should remain so in the future!
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=42 NAME="President">
The debate is closed.
<P>
The vote will take place at noon.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=4>
1994 Cohesion Fund
<SPEAKER ID=43 NAME="President">
The next item is the report (A4-0069/96) by Mr Costa Neves, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, on the complement to the Commission's annual report on the Cohesion Fund (1994) (COM(95)0222 - C40237/95).
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=44 NAME="Costa Neves">
<SPEAKER ID=45 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Theonas">
Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Costa Neves on his report.
<P>
On behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, I would like to point out that in accordance with the principles governing its operation, the Cohesion Fund aims to underpin the efforts of the less well developed Member States.
Its declared aim is therefore to support economic and social cohesion.
Financial support for infrastructure projects is aimed at doing something about unemployment in weaker Member States and about the structural problems of their economies, in an effort to make an important contribution towards development.
Consequently, it is an important instrument for the exercise of economic policy, and it can play some part in the reduction of regional inequalities and in a fairer distribution of revenue within the framework of the European Union.
<P>
Yet, the linking of a smooth flow of finance or approvals of new projects to the absence of excessive financial deficits, as envisaged in the related regulation, could lead to negative results and undermine the Cohesion Fund's declared aim, granted that the Fund was created to contribute towards convergence and not to be converted into a means of imposing specific financial conduct.
Approval and the payments of credits must go together with the fulfilment of conditions such as compatibility of the project with the Fund's declared principles, its suitability and utility for development, its connection with the promotion of the project and its proper and transparent management.
However, to link it to the size of the overall financial deficit of the beneficiary state could impede efforts towards convergence, bearing in mind the condition in which most of those states find themselves.
It also leads to a vicious circle since the withholding of credits then leads to worse recession, which entails additional non-productive expenditure, which in turn exacerbates the financial problem.
<P>
Consequently, the assessment of projects and the finance for them should be based on the criterion of how well the project contributes to the developmental effort of the Member State in question, and should take into account facts and figures that reflect its particular features.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=46 NAME="President">
The debate on this item will be resumed today at 6 p.m.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=47 NAME="President">
Before going ahead with voting time, I would like to tell you that, as reported by the news agencies, a terrorist attack took place this morning at 7 a.m., 5 a.m. GMT, at the Europa Hotel near the Pyramids of Gizeh, 5 km outside Cairo.
A group of terrorists attacked innocent tourists with the loss of 17 or 18 lives, most of them Greek tourists, and 14 or 15 wounded, 7 of whom are in a critical condition.
It is reported that 14 of those who died were women, and I would like to express the House's most vigorous possible condemnation of that terrorist attack, and our absolute opposition to terrorism wherever and against whomsoever it takes place.
<P>
I would also like to express the sentiments of us all, I presume, in addressing Parliament's warmest condolences to the families of those who died, and our sympathy towards the families of those wounded.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=48 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Alavanos">
Mr President, you have spoken for us all.
I too heard a little while ago about what has happened, from Mr Dimitrakopoulos.
<P>
I just wonder, besides what you have said, whether the Commission, the Commissioner responsible for tourism ought not to consider the need to inform European Union citizens about the particular dangers they may well have to face in certain countries?
I do not know whether that would be part of a travel directive or something else, but I believe the European Union could contribute in some way towards the protection of citizens.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=49 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Lambraki">
Mr President, on behalf of the Socialist Group I would like to express our revulsion and sorrow at this terrorist act, and our sympathy for the families of the victims.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=50 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Christodoulou">
Mr President, I too, on behalf of our political group, would like to express our sharing of this grief and to ask that we should not dignify such occurrences with a political or any other character.
Terrorism is to be condemned anywhere in the world, and that is all.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=51 NAME="McCarthy">
Mr President, on a very serious point of order. I shall be very brief.
Last night, in the exchange of views with Commissioner Fischler, the chairman of my group asked for a vote by Vice-President Fontana so that we could have an open question-and-answer session.
I have discovered that, although we protested to the President in the chair, he used the speakers' list that was given to him by the other political groups.
I find it unacceptable that out of 14 speakers, 11 were on the speakers' list.
There were at least 70 people in the Chamber.
I find that unacceptable in terms of the democratic accountability of this House.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=52 NAME="President">
Mrs McCarthy, I was not here yesterday evening, but I asked our collaborators at the desk, who take a different view of the matter. However, we will see that you are informed about the facts so that we can look into it further.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=53 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Pasty">
Mr President, is it acceptable, now that we have voted on nearly a hundred amendments, that the plenary should substitute its own text for that of the committee responsible?
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=54 NAME="President">
Mr Pasty, I think this is an issue that should be considered both by the Conference of Presidents of the Political Groups and by the Bureau.
I would not like to start a debate here, in Plenary.
It is one of Parliament's eternal problems and we have tried very many times to solve it without any result so far.
Let our Presidents look at it again, and let us do so ourselves, in case some new effort can achieve something better.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=55 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Breyer">

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Green Group in the European Parliament voted against the report which has been adopted today, because it contains a number of loopholes which pose a major problem in terms of authorization.
We very much regret that our amendments were not carried, above all the one taking up the Swedish proposal on comparative assessment, whereby authorization would be refused if the assessment revealed that a less harmful biocidal product was available.
The report now says that a product may be refused and removed from the list.
But may does not mean shall : this means that we have abdicated all responsibility and placed it firmly in the hands of the Commission, instead of insisting on the imposition of a rule to prevent biocidal products, with their damaging effects on human health and the environment, from reaching the market.
<P>
We also regret the adoption of an amendment authorizing anti-fouling products for ten years, even though we know that mechanical methods exist which make the use of these products superfluous.
This is all the more unfortunate since we are aware that these products are the main cause of pollution in our seas and oceans. It is therefore utterly incomprehensible why, in voting today, the European Parliament has above all looked after the interests of industry, rather than trying to adopt a report which seeks to minimize the quantity of biocidal products being placed on the market.
<P>
We also find it regrettable that authorization is granted for such a long period of time, and that our amendment in line with the Danish proposal was rejected, namely to authorize highly toxic products for four years only.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=56 NAME="Amadeo">
No-one can fail to be aware that there are differences in temperature and climate between the north and the south of Europe which cause different conditions for microflora and parasites to live in and hence give rise to a different demand for products such as biocidal products for example to solve this problem.
<P>
Harmonization ought to take account of this and that implies a certain flexibility in the list to be prepared and a calm and accurate evaluation of the whole problem in all its breadth and complexity.
<P>
Our inclination is to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks and to correct the belief that biocidal products are necessarily always damaging to the environment and dangerous to human health.
<P>
The directive under discussion does not refer to a new sector but forms part of an already existing legal system governing chemical substances and preparations in general.
<P>

Rejecting Amendments Nos 4 and 42 on laying down a green tax, and Amendments Nos 7, 38, 43, 87 and 89, and accepting instead Amendments Nos 96, 97, 100 and 101, we support the directive.

<P>
<SPEAKER ID=57 NAME="Díez de Rivera Icaza">
The increase in the number of biocidal products is alarming.
Our dependence on chemicals is a growing cause for concern.
Only a fraction of the almost 100 000 chemical products on the market have been authorized.
Some ECU 400 million is spent on biocidal products and more than ECU 11 billion spent on pesticides each year.
As a result, there was a need for this proposal for a directive concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, in order to establish an approved list of active substances and a system for the mutual recognition of biocidal products in the single market.
<P>
Because of the complexity and interdependence of the 20 or so existing directives on chemical products, understanding and interpreting this draft directive is not easy.
There is an urgent need, in this area, for the simplification of legal texts that was proclaimed in the Treaty on European Union, and I therefore wish to congratulate Mrs Jensen on her work.
<P>
I would end by expressing my endorsement of the agreement which I reached personally with the rapporteur concerning the alternative evaluation methods that are required, which despite representing a very positive step, could have given rise, without this compromise amendment, to unacceptable situations of privilege and monopoly.
<P>
Given the importance of this issue, and the support of the Commission and Parliament for Amendment No 95, the Spanish socialist delegation will be voting in favour of this report.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=58 NAME="Fayot">
The so-called 'biocidal' products, such as disinfectants, products for treating wood, bird repellents, anti-slug agents, insecticides, etc., are not ecologically harmless products.
Furthermore, this wide domain of chemistry has a substantial economic value.
It is, then, because it lies on the border between economics and ecology that this report arouses strong feelings.
<P>
I would like to say at once that I fully endorse Mrs Kirsten Jensen's reservations regarding the 'automatic' principle introduced into the directive.
In accordance with this principle, a biocidal product which has been authorized by the responsible authorities in a single State would also have to be authorized automatically by the authorities in other States within a period of sixty days.
This poses a problem for those countries whose ecological standards are high, and it presupposes the existence of authorities that are genuinely capable of making distinctions.
<P>
According to the rapporteur, there are at present about a hundred thousand chemical products on the market, very few of which have been authorized under the procedure suggested in the present directive. The importance of efficient monitoring procedures will be readily appreciated.
We need not only to enable consumers to protect themselves against chemical products whose side effects are little understood, but also to defend nature and wildlife against invasive chemistry.
What we need to do, therefore, is to provide the Member States with the option of conducting a fresh assessment and refusing approval to a substance if it appears that a similar substance already exists and poses fewer health or environmental risks.
<P>
Compliance with this principle, combined with the requirement that the Member States should be provided with genuinely comprehensive information, can restrict the damage caused to the environment and to health by biocidal products.
<P>
That is why I strongly support Mrs Jensen's report.
<P>
Oomen-Ruijten report
<SPEAKER ID=59 NAME="Carlsson, Cederschiöld, Stenmarck and Virgin">
One of the fundamental principles of the European Union is that of subsidiarity.
In order for the Union to function effectively and in order for the people of Europe to have faith in cooperation, Community legislation must concentrate on those problems which national governments can only solve through cooperation.
<P>
The measure concerning comparative price labelling is a clear example of the move away from the principle of subsidiarity.
Such a move will provoke criticism from the Member States about unnecessary bureaucracy emanating from the EU.
<P>
We believe in principle that this type of legislation should not be the subject of a Community directive.
The proposed legislation is not needed to make the single market work.
We consider there to be few disadvantages in certain differences existing between Member States in this field.
Where legislation is needed urgently, this should be the concern of each country individually.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=60 NAME="Gahrton, Holm and Lindholm">
In principle we believe that the EU should have nothing to do with issues such as this and that they are best dealt with at national level.
We have, however, chosen to support what is best for the consumer, and have therefore voted for the report.
<P>
We support the fact that things are to be made easier for consumers, among other things by making price comparisons where necessary, by including comparable prices in advertisements indicating prices and by removing the link with quantity series, as they make things more difficult for consumers.
<P>
We cannot support the amendments concerning the single currency, as we do not support the idea as such; nor do we believe that it will come to pass.
From the consumer point of view we do not believe either that it will be easy to make sense of all the different prices which will be indicated.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=61 NAME="Klaß">
Consumer protection and consumer information are both very important, especially in the internal market.
As a consumer, I wish to be informed about what I buy: informed about the content as well as the price.
I wish to be able to make objective comparisons.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, objective!
In other words, distinctions must be drawn.
<P>
We have managed to achieve standardized sizes for many products on our markets.
Consumers benefit from being able to compare them.
<P>
We improved matters in the wine sector in the late 1980s by banning 0.68, 0.7 and 0.73 litre bottles and replacing them with the now compulsory 0.75 litre bottles.
<P>
This EC-wide harmonization was, moreover, an attempt to reduce the number of bottles in circulation by increasing recycling.
At the time, this was a major cost factor for the wine industry.
<P>
A basic indication of the price per litre without distinguishing between different, legally controlled qualities of wine - which in Germany range from simple table wine to top-of-the-range specialities like Trockenbeerenauslese and Eiswein - would fall well short of ensuring price transparency, in other words enabling consumers to compare the quality and price of the individual wines on sale.
<P>
Not all wines are the same.
What is marketed in 0.75 litre bottles is not sold in 1 litre bottles, and to compare wine made from late-harvested grapes with ordinary table wine would be like comparing chalk and cheese.
<P>
An objective approach is thus essential.
And let us carry out a cost-benefit analysis of all the rules that we adopt.
Conversion does not come cheap.
<P>
But where is the benefit for consumers?
I think we have to draw distinctions.
Where standard sizes have already been introduced, it will be enough to go on indicating prices for these units.
<P>
Dual price indications should only be provided when it is objectively possible to compare prices, and therefore helpful for the consumer.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=62 NAME="Lulling">
Talleyrand said everything which is exaggerated is insignificant.
It was this basic proof that came into my mind when I analysed the report by our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection proposing a new Community directive relating to the indication of prices of products offered to the consumer, with a view to protecting the consumer by providing appropriate - in other words - specific - information on prices, so as to enable a comparison.
<P>
I am bound to say that I could happily have accepted the Commission's proposal, which seems to me to conform to the intended objective of protecting the consumer.
<P>
As regards the new obligation on retail traders to disclose the selling price and the price per unit of measurement - in other words per metre, per kilo or per litre - obviously there can be no question of forcing the retailer to disclose, for example, the price per litre on a bottle of first grade growth wine which is supplied only in the standard 0.75 litre bottle.
<P>
What would be the point, in this case, of indicating the price per litre? After all, for wine of this high quality there are no litre bottles on the market.
Such information would tell the consumer nothing.
All it would do would be to increase his confusion, a nonsensical result.
<P>
I trust that the amendment before us will be interpreted in this way, if it is adopted.
<P>
Too much information, especially irrelevant information, is counter-productive.
I wonder whether we do need to force traders, following the introduction of the single currency, to quote three prices for each product during the transitional period: the price in national currency, the price in European currency, and the price per measured unit in the single currency, and why not quote this price in the national currency too, which would ultimately result in four different quoted prices?
<P>
However, the authors of these amendments seem to have lacked the courage of their own convictions, since they propose a detailed report of what these obligations would cost the retail trade, and even suggest a solution to the problems faced by small traders.
The answer, according to them, could be for the Commission to provide aid to persons in this category, though of course they give no details as to how such a proposal - doubtless well intentioned - could be implemented in practice to the tens of millions of small retail traders in the Community.
<P>
Nor do I understand why we are being asked to delete the Commission's very reasonable proposal that the Member States should be permitted to exempt products from the obligatory indication of the price per unit of measurement if the provisions laid down at national or Community level do not require any indication of the length, weight or volume of those products.
This option includes, in particular, products sold by the piece or unit.
Why delete this reasonable provision?
Why impose abnormally short deadlines for the application of all these new obligations?
<P>
I think that the Commission's proposals are far more reasonable.
For all these reasons, I abstained.
<P>
Walter report
<SPEAKER ID=63 NAME="Lindqvist">
I have voted for the report. I regard it as a first attempt to illuminate the social consequences of EMU.
This does not mean I am in favour of EMU.
On the contrary, I am against EMU precisely because I consider that there are considerable risks that unemployment will increase still further, that regional imbalances will get worse as a result of greater concentration in trade and industry and that environmental problems will grow because of the lack of environmental criteria for 'growth' .
<P>
The report should also have looked at the changes which will take place as regards the instruments which may be used at national level to counter downturns in the economy, as they affect forestry for example.
Will Member States be able to pursue their own economic policy, interest rate policy, currency policy, regional policy and labour market policy in the future so as to respond to such changes in the economy or will all the relevant decisions be taken at EU level by the new central bank? In the long term, will tax and finance policies be decided at EU level too?
<P>
The democratic process leading up to a decision on EMU is important.
It will be made easier if the advantages and disadvantages of EMU are better explained.
Referenda should be regarded as the obvious means of ensuring that EMU has the support of the people.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=64 NAME="Novo">
This report contradicts itself to a great extent.
Both in the explanatory memorandum and in a major part of the conclusions many of the negative traits of the current economic and social state of the European Union are recognised.
<P>
In fact, it is worth remembering, and we think this is quite obvious, that economic and social cohesion and the reduction in the disparities of development are central objectives of the European Union and we should also remember that EMU will not just be an instrument - just one alternative, we should add - but is a sharp reminder to all of those - including the Governments of the 15 countries - transforming the passage to a single currency into a central objective (which should not even be an objective at all) and in addition excluded from any of the discussions about the revision of the Treaties.
<P>
We should also like to point out that the increase in unemployment (a further one and a half million jobs lost by the year 2000), the reduction in economic growth, the increase in taxes or the reduction of social public spending (or both) are all consequences of the achievement of the criteria of nominal convergence and we should also remember that a Union at different speeds is a contradiction in terms - none of this comes as a surprise because we have been saying it for a long time.
<P>
The contradiction in this report resides in the fact that some of the conclusions insisted, nevertheless, as is recognised, on maintaining the existing criteria with a view to the single currency, in the suggestion of tightening up the criteria after 1999 (with disciplinary or punitive measures applied to the 'ins' and the 'outs' , despite the fact that a multi-speed Europe has already been accepted), by restating - unbelievably - the principle that EMU can actually foster social cohesion, when it is really a contradiction in terms, by putting back on the table a proposal of conditionality for the Cohesion Fund and the implicit rejection of the creation of identical regulations for the structural funds after 1999.
<P>
We tried to solve this contradiction by letting the peoples of Europe have a say and by proposing the conducting of constitutional referendums on a handover to a single currency, but this amendment was rejected.
<P>
Therefore, and without denying the public recognition which we have defended for a long time, and which a major part of this report actually corroborates, we had no choice other than to abstain from the vote on this document.
<P>
Chernobyl disaster
<SPEAKER ID=65 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Boogerd-Quaak">
Mr President, I have just voted for this report with the greatest of pleasure.
I would remind honourable Members that we have had a visit here from a delegation from the Ukraine.
I myself was involved in this visit. It emerged once more from the talks we had with the delegation just how complicated the situation in the Ukraine is.
But I should also reiterate the point made by many honourable Members in past debates, namely that there is no need to dismantle the two new nuclear power stations.
The old plant meets only 16 % of the Ukraine's energy needs and it became apparent to us in the course of our discussions that the search for alternatives would be welcomed.
But the Ukraine - rightly - wants more than words and wants to see action.
So I urge the European Commission to work vigorously with the Ukraine to find alternative options.
I think that country deserves this, but we as Western Europeans deserve it too, despite all the risks entailed.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=66 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Breyer">
<SPEAKER ID=67 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Antony">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for more than seventy years the USSR regime was presented as the model society, the result of the application of a socialism which was allegedly both scientific and inevitable.
Today, this very House is crawling with the USSR's travelling companions - green or red - and paid spies. And that same USSR today presents us with the terrifying spectacle of an unprecedented global devastation, because although communism certainly killed people in Gulags and massacres, we now see the consequences of its madness endangering not only the heroic Chechen people but the entire human race.
<P>
It is not only the Chernobyl power station - where the fusion of one of the two reactors still cannot be brought under control - that still threatens Europe with a fresh disaster: there are twenty other power stations that could explode at any time.
Not forgetting the Barents Sea, transformed into a vast radioactive dustbin where 30, 000 fuel rods have been dumped and where 52 abandoned nuclear submarines represent 52 separate terrifying dangers.
The same is even true, I regret to say, of the Far North of Siberia, where there are nuclear dumping grounds for submarines.
To take account of this vast, tragic situation is the most urgent task confronting all the nations of Europe.
That is why we voted in favour of the text presented to us, whatever its deficiencies.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=68 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Weber">
Mr President, I voted against this motion for a resolution because the text allows the Western nuclear industry complete freedom to go and carry out cosmetic operations in the countries of the former USSR.
In this connection, let me cite the example of the pressurized water nuclear power station of Cattenom, which is in my own region.
Once it had been found that the probability of an accident was very much higher than had initially been admitted, and after an opinion had been sought from the Commission in Brussels, iodine filters were fitted which are supposed - in the event of a melt-down - to prevent the escape of radioactive iodine.
Well, those filters have never been tested - not even in a laboratory - so that this is indeed a case of 'cosmetic' treatment, in so far as it serves no purpose whatsoever.
For my part, I would have preferred the public funds to be invested in cogeneration rather than in the alleged improvement of existing power stations.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=69 NAME="Gahrton">
The Chernobyl disaster was discovered in Sweden and apart from Ukraine and Belarus Sweden has been the country which has suffered most from the consequences.
Still, ten years on, 7-8 % of the Lapps' reindeer in North Bothnia are condemned because of excessive levels of caesium 137.
A large proportion of natural raw products, such as game, fish, mushrooms and berries, are also unfit for human consumption on account of their caesium content.
25 % of elk have to be condemned and in the worst hit areas more or less all roedeer.
It is not unusual to find roedeer with 30 000 becquerels in the Gävle region - and all this despite the fact that the authorities promised ten years ago that all radioactivity would disappear very soon!
<P>
At the same time Sweden is one of the countries most dependent on nuclear power for its electricity supplies.
To implement the decision which has been taken to decommission all nuclear power stations by the year 2010 will not therefore be easy but it must be done nevertheless.
Despite the fact that the nuclear industry has invested enormous sums of money in PR campaigns to avoid decommissioning, Sweden's new prime minister, Göran Persson, has voiced his views in such a way that he was described as an enemy of nuclear power in the newspaper 'Aftonbladet' the other day.
Persson has said that the decommissioning of nuclear power is an opportunity for development. His industry minister, Anders Sundström, said yesterday that nuclear power as a source of energy was finished.
Sooner or later it would have to be phased out everywhere and it was good to be among the first.
The EU should listen to this Swedish minister.
<P>
The phasing out of nuclear power - in order to avoid other Chernobyls in the future - is both possible and necessary and could, moreover, confer a competitive advantage, since those who are first to give up this doomed energy source will have put all the problems of conversion behind them when the competition still has them to come.
<P>
Here in the European Parliament various committees have pronounced in favour of the phasing out of nuclear power, in favour of Euratom becoming a body for alternative energy.
If the European Parliament really wants to protect the future of the Union, a common plan for the phasing out of nuclear power should be very high on the agenda.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=70 NAME="Lindqvist">
I have voted for the resolution but would, if I had been permitted to draft it, have included a section on the fact that nuclear power as a source of energy should be phased out both within the EU and in the rest of Europe and replaced with renewable and sustainable sources of energy based on the principle of recycling.
<P>
The EU should therefore amend the Euratom Treaty so that the current text relating to supporting civil nuclear power is removed; the Treaty should then promote renewable energy sources which are sustainable in the long term.
<P>
Visby Summit
<SPEAKER ID=71 NAME="Kristoffersen">
The forthcoming summit meeting to be attented both by the heads of government of the countries around the Baltic Sea and the EU presidency, as well as the Commission President, in many way constitutes a milestone in European cooperation.
It is four years since the Baltic Sea Council was established as a Danish-German initiative (in April 1992).
The Council already forms a framework for gradually closer 'triangular cooperation' between the EU, the Nordic countries and the Central and Eastern European countries in the region.
At the same time several parallels may be drawn between this new Baltic Sea Cooperation and Mediterranean Cooperation .
<P>
First of all, because the circle of participating countries in the Baltic region also consists of both existing and future EU Member States, as well as countries for which EU membership is not currently relevant for various reasons.
<P>
Secondly, because there is a high degree of similarity between the problems which the two fora for cooperation are intended to resolve.
Both in the north and the south, the aim is to secure democratic development and lasting political stability by means of cross-border cooperation on trade, the environment, establishment of an improved transport infrastructure and combating international crime.
<P>
Part of the cooperation process is a developed network of association agreements between the EU and the European third countries in the region; the EU provides support for the promotion of economic growth and the solution of a number of acute environmental problems.
<P>
It is worth noting that the setting up of the Baltic Sea Council has been instrumental in strengthening the Baltic states' freedom of action and independence in foreign policy in the context of broader European cooperation - a process which the Nordic countries have a special obligation to promote and strengthen for both geographical as well as historical and cultural reasons.
<P>
Middle East situation
<SPEAKER ID=72 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Antony">
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we did not vote in favour of the texts that had been presented, reflecting as they do in the refusal of this Parliament to denounce the collusion by Israel and Syria at the expense of Lebanon.
These text, once again, make no genuine peace proposals, and the peace of 1993 has failed.
Why?
Because it strengthens the apartheid between Jews and Palestinians, an apartheid which is just as unacceptable as the form which once prevailed in South Africa, between the Bantu homelands and the predominantly European areas.
<P>
Well, on the basis of the noble ideas of peace, democracy and progress that everyone advocates, why not learn from the example of South Africa?
I propose to this House the creation of a Federal Republic of the Middle East, constructed on the principles of equality and the rejection of exclusion.
In four words, one man, one vote.
It will comprise the territories of the former British mandate: Jordan, Israel and Palestine.
Its President, on the same principle as Nelson Mandela, would be Yasser Arafat, representing the Arab majority, and assisted by a Vice-President, like Frederik De Klerk in South Africa, who would be Shimon Peres, while his Minister of the Interior, equivalent to the Zulu Chief Buthelezi, would be the King of Jordan.
I have no doubt that the anti-racist Jewish leaders would accept this solution of universal citizenship, as the Whites did in South Africa.
<P>
My thanks to the ushers and officers for their attention.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=73 NAME="Gahrton">
The Green Group has voted for the joint resolution concerning the Baltic Sea conference, despite the fact that we regard it as being far too weak in many respects.
<P>
The environmental situation in the Baltic Sea is alarming, not least in respect of exhaust fumes from road transport and the risks from nuclear power stations.
The EU should therefore take its own rules on environmental impact assessments more seriously where TEN projects, including the Öresund bridge, are concerned, and adopt a clear policy on the closure of dangerous nuclear power stations in the region, rather than supporting them and prolonging their active life.
The potential for alternative energy sources has not been exploited at all.
<P>
Nor has sufficient attention been paid to the risk that EU membership and the Schengen Agreement, which it is true will increase freedom of movement for EU citizens within the EU, may result in the establishment of new barriers between peoples in the Baltic region.
<P>
Finally, there is no serious analysis of the security situation in the region.
Many former communist states are now doing all they can to become members of Western military alliances (NATO and/or the WEU).
At the same time it seems there is only limited interest within these alliances in an enlargement which would give them a long common border with an Eastern, Russian-led bloc.
The Greens are opponents of military blocs and would warn against a new division of Europe.
It is therefore surprising that the majority in the European Parliament would appear to have so little interest in exploiting Sweden and Finland's experience of non-alignment as the basis for new, common security parameters in the region.
Irrespective of whether one is in principle a believer in or an opponent of enlargement of NATO and/or the WEU, alternatives must be prepared.
Current policy, which gives the impression that the countries concerned will soon be incorporated in a Western system of military 'security' , may cause people to feel they have been deceived and give rise to a dangerous backlash if it does not become reality soon; it may also foster nationalist sentiments.
A serious analysis should therefore be made of the opportunities which exist for the creation of a non-aligned security zone in the Baltic region for those parts which are not part of the Russian Federation or NATO and of course do not become dependent on one or other of these military blocs either.
The EU countries Sweden and Finland should play an active role in this. Ukraine's decision to remain non-aligned is a positive step in this direction.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=74 NAME="Ullmann">

Two things must be halted at once: firstly, all efforts to shoot down the Middle East peace process through international terrorism; and secondly, neutral population groups must no longer fall hostage to escalating military confrontation.
<P>
The first can be stopped, and assistance can be provided for the neutral population - the group whose very name is a blasphemy has now admitted that it receives support from Iran, that Iraq is providing transport, and Syria weapons.
<P>
The international community should make it clear once and for all that what these countries are supporting is a criminal attack on peace, which must be condemned as international crime and dealt with accordingly.
Katyusha rockets have to be supplied and transported, and anyone who does so is collaborating in a crime against peace.
The international community should call to account the perpetrators and their accomplices, and do everything in its power to help the innocent people who have become involved.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=75 NAME="President">
That concludes voting time.
<P>
(The sitting was suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=76 LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Apolinário">
Madam President, just half a minute to mention a sad situation.
The Portuguese public have been faced, yesterday and today, with pictures of terrible violence resulting from the savage and barbaric beating of eight East Timorese citizens who tried to find refuge in the German Embassy.
<P>
Again today another three East Timorese tried to seek refuge in the Dutch Embassy.
I should like again to mention the fight of the people of Timor and I should like to ask the Presidency of the European Parliament to do all it can and to make all of the possible contacts in order to remain informed about the events which are taking place in Jakarta in order to safeguard the rights of the people of Timor.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=77 LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Costa Neves">
Madam President, indeed once again there has been a flare-up of the situation in East Timor, in relation to Indonesia. I should like to say that the reaction of the police force and regime in Indonesia has now gone even further than that to which we were used and what we were already used to was bad.
On the other hand, it is vital that we be given an explanation about exactly what has happened, especially since one of the events concerns the Embassy of a European Union country in Jakarta - I am referring to the German Embassy.
I would like to have all the necessary information - in particular, as to how this situation came about so that the European Parliament can take a stand on this matter, as it always has in the past.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=78 NAME="President">
Thank you, Mr Costa Neves.
Like Mr Apolinário, you are well aware that those were not really points of order, but in view of the gravity of the events you have reported I am nevertheless glad to take due note of them.
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=6>
Topical and urgent debate
<SPEAKER ID=163 NAME="President">
The next item is the continuation of the report (A4-0069/96) by Mr Costa Neves, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, on the complement to the Commission's annual report on the Cohesion Fund (1994) (COM(95) 0222 - C4-0237/95).
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=164 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Izquierdo Collado">
Madam President, I firstly wish to say that I regret the lack of continuity in this debate between the rapporteur's introduction of his report and the speeches which will now be made, since this will to a large extent distort the message. I must therefore now return to the speech by Mr Costa Neves and his report.
<P>
I should like to begin by congratulating him, since I believe that he has drawn up a considered, objective and unbiased report on the very important subject of the implementation of the Structural Funds in 1994.
<P>
In view of some of the comments that are made concerning the monitoring of the Structural Funds, I believe that there is a need for Parliament to underline the substantial impact which these funds are having on the development of the economies, social cohesion and general welfare of the countries which receive them. These are countries which are lagging behind the rest of Europe in terms of GDP, per capita income and a range of other factors, but which will hopefully one day cease to be so.
<P>
In particular, I wish to say that in Spain, we are proud not only of our utilization of the Structural Funds - because in Spain, the take-up rate is very high, not to say comprehensive - but also of the fact that these funds have clearly and efficiently helped to transform Spanish society.
At the present time, Spain's economy is in relatively good shape.
It could even be said that is in better shape than the economies of a number of other European countries which are more advanced in terms of infrastructure and technology.
And the unequivocal message which I wish to convey to Parliament and the public today is that the Structural Funds are an essential means of removing obstacles and transforming and modernizing the countries which receive them.
These are substantial funds which - I acknowledge - must be supervised, and we agree absolutely with whatever efforts to monitor, evaluate and rationalize their use are considered necessary.
However, these are also funds which are serving to bring our infrastructure up to a level which is necessary to foster not only competitiveness, but also social cohesion.
I thank Mr Costa Neves for his report, and I believe that reports on the various annual assessments of the implementation of the Structural Funds should continue to be presented, since this provides Parliament and the beneficiary countries with a guarantee.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=165 LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Novo">
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on the application of the Cohesion Fund in 1994, which deserves our full support - and I take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the rapporteur - includes various amendments tabled by us, accepted by the rapporteur and approved in discussion by the Committee on Regional Policy.
<P>
I should like to pick out those which call for the need to carry out an appropriate and prior assessment of the environmental impact project and the need for elected regional and local authorities to take part with increased powers in the supervisory committees.
<P>
In a political framework in which certain sectors insist on suspending funding to those countries which fail to meet the criteria of nominal convergence imposed by Maastricht, it is right, above all, to emphasise the adoption of amendments which we also presented and which advocate that the regulatory aspects of the Cohesion Fund must not be interpreted in an inflexible manner, accentuating at the same time that it is a protocol, outside the Treaty on European Union which, therefore, does not give it equal legal force.
<P>
Along these lines, it is also worth pointing that the Cohesion Fund does not favour only the beneficiary countries but also increases demand for goods and services throughout the European Union - which therefore, in the end, benefits all Member States.
It is also a well known fact that for every 100 ECU handed out by the structural funds, 45 ECU benefit the less-developed countries of the European Union.
<P>
Therefore - and to make sure that this is made quite clear - we can be sure to oppose and denounce firmly anyone who pretends and even accepts the idea of imposing conditions relating to monetary convergence of an even stricter nature on countries following 1999 which continue to need the Cohesion Fund and, not content with that, who might have the idea of extending the same conditions to the allocation of structural funds in the future.
Nor can we accept that countries affected by the Cohesion Fund should therefore be marginalised in the allocation of various financial incentives, as happened recently in respect of the construction of trans-European networks.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=166 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Schroedter">
Madam President, cohesion is more correctly referred to as economic and social cohesion.
However, even a microscope will hardly reveal the social element of projects funded from the Cohesion Fund.
It is not just common knowledge, but is actually stated in the document 'Europe 2000+' , that investment in transport stimulates development in regions where growth is already strong.
At a hearing in the Committee on Regional Policy, the Spanish Secretary of State for the Environment said that this was leading to greater polarization in the economic power of some central regions.
<P>
The point here is that environmental projects do not always protect the environment.
For example, under the 'green dot' system introduced in Germany, waste is eliminated simply by changing its name from waste to 'recyclable material' .
This avoids having to avoid waste. The system has caused one environmental scandal after another, and a study is now being financed with a view to trying out a similar scheme in Portugal.
This is how the reserves of the new structural policy are being used.
The present annual report will surely be the last one where cohesion funding is paid out without respecting the convergence criteria.
Things are going to change in the future.
<P>
In future, in fact, the disadvantaged regions will be even more disadvantaged.
If we are wondering how to set about reforming the structural policy, the Cohesion Fund springs to mind.
I am of the opinion that we should come out clearly against preserving the convergence criteria for structural policy purposes, because for social and economic cohesion to be undermined by convergence criteria is counter-productive.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=167 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Berend">
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Costa Neves, on his excellent report.
According to the principles governing its operation, the aim of the Cohesion Fund is to support the efforts of the less developed Member States whose GDP is less than 90 % of the Community average to narrow the gap between themselves and the other Member States; in other words, to strengthen economic and social cohesion.
<P>
The fund is a significant instrument of economic policy and can play a not inconsiderable role in reducing regional disparities in the European Union, particularly in terms of environmental protection and infrastructure schemes in the context of the trans-European transport networks.
The fact that the year 1994 is being discussed here, and that the Court of Auditors reports a payment rate scarcely in excess of 50 %, shows that the form employed by the Commission to provide information for that year was inadequate, since it has merely supplied a complementary document.
<P>
On the other hand, the funds have been properly administered and the projects completed on time.
This proves that the beneficiary countries have been keen to use the opportunities provided by the Cohesion Fund to move closer to the goal of convergence.
Although the balance between financing environmental and transport infrastructure projects has largely been redressed, it must be said that road-building is still being prioritized unduly.
However, the increased attention being given to projects to protect the environment, such as water supplies and the treatment of waste water and other waste, is welcome.
But the approval of projects must be subject to a proper environmental impact assessment.
<P>
Finally, as an MEP who does not come from a cohesion country, I would stress that this fund has not just been a useful instrument of Community initiatives for the beneficiary countries, but has boosted trade and stimulated demand for goods and services throughout the European Union.
<P>
<SPEAKER ID=168 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Gradin">
<SPEAKER ID=169 NAME="President">
<SPEAKER ID=170 NAME="President">
