3-001
SITTING OF WEDNESDAY, 16 JANUARY 2002
___________________________
3-002
IN THE CHAIR: MR COX
President
(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)
Mr Pacheco Pereira: 164 votes.
(Applause)
Mr Provan: 162 votes.
(Applause)
Mr Schmid, Gerhard: 151 votes.
3-002-250
Election of Vice-Presidents of the European
Parliament
(Applause)
Mr Onesta: 148 votes.
3-002-500
President. – I should like to take this opportunity to give
you the results of our vote yesterday for the VicePresidents. As you know, we elected the Vice-Presidents
by acclaim and then held a vote to establish the order of
precedence. The number of Members voting was 554,
the number of blank or void votes 9, the votes cast 545.
The votes were cast as follows:
Mr Martin: 300 votes.
(Applause)
Mr Puerta: 120 votes.
I congratulate all those colleagues and, in accordance
with Rule 15(2), the Vice-Presidents will take
precedence in accordance with the number of votes they
have obtained. The composition of the new Bureau will
be notified to the presidents of the institutions of the
European Communities.
(Applause)
3-003
Approval of the Minutes of the previous sitting
Congratulations, David.
Mr Dimitrakopoulos: 240 votes.
(Applause)
Mrs Cederschiöld: 230 votes.
(Applause)
3-004
President. – The next item of business is the approval of
the Minutes of the sittings of Monday, 17 December
2001, Monday, 14 January 2002 and Tuesday, 15
January 2002. The Minutes have been distributed.
Are there any comments?
3-005
Mr Imbeni: 226 votes.
(Applause)
Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca: 215 votes.
Rovsing (PPE-DE). – (DA) Mr President, I think there
is a translation error in the Danish text in that, under
point 7, ‘Closure of sitting’, the words ‘The oldest
Member closed the sitting at 7.30 p.m.’ appear. I think it
was you, Mr President, who closed the sitting, and that is
also what the French version states.
(Applause)
3-006
Mr Podestà: 203 votes.
(Applause)
Mr Friedrich: 200 votes.
(Applause)
President. – Thank you, Mr Rovsing, for looking after
my interests so soon. Douze points! We will have that
corrected in the Minutes. Are there any further
comments?
(Parliament approved the minutes of the previous
sittings)
***
Mrs Lalumière: 191 votes.
3-007
(Applause)
Mr Colom i Naval: 168 votes.
(Applause)
Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, there is
a matter I should like to raise. On 19 December, just
before Christmas, I was the victim of a robbery in the
immediate vicinity of our Parliament in Brussels. I was
in my car waiting at the traffic lights when my
6
16/01/2002
windscreens were smashed and everything was taken out
of the car. I will spare you the details, but I have heard
that raids of the same kind have occurred several times
since then involving other cars, even last week. My
question is: could the newly elected Quaestors catalogue
the type of robberies that have taken place in the last
year near the European Parliament building in Brussels
and take tough action with the police so that the latter
take measures, for I can assure you, to have to endure
something like that is no laughing matter.
3-008
President. – Mrs Maij-Weggen, that evidently meets
with the approval of the House and we will do that. 1
appeal can be made within two months. However, I am
appalled to tell you that a further case has now arisen; an
18-year-old is to be taken to court on Monday for the
same offence of adultery and will be condemned to
death, again by stoning.
I sincerely hope that this House, and every Member in it,
will support you in writing to Nigeria in the hope that
such sentences will be stopped in the future, so that this
barbaric method of killing someone under Sharia law is
taken up with the Nigerian Government and the latter
urged to ensure that it never happens again.
(Applause)
3-009
Order of business
3-010
President. – The final draft agenda drawn up by the
Conference of Presidents at its meeting on Thursday, 10
January, under Rule 110, has been distributed.
I have received no proposals to change the agenda for
this session.
(Parliament adopted the agenda for the current partsession).
***
3-011
Lynne (ELDR). – Mr President, on a point of order. In
light of the amendment tabled by Mr Davies and myself
at the end of last year to the common foreign and
security policy report and adopted by Parliament, calling
on the EU to act as an honest broker between India and
Pakistan over the dispute in Kashmir, could we have a
Council declaration or an oral question on this matter at
the next part-session? This dispute dates back more than
50 years; UN resolutions have not been acted upon and,
as both countries are now nuclear powers, it is very
important that we resolve this dispute. I ask the EU to be
proactive and to offer its services as a mediator, as no
other body seems to be doing so.
3-012
President. – Mrs Lynne, that is a more unusual point of
order but I note the point you make. I would ask you to
have the item raised by the chairman of the Group of the
European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party at the
next meeting of the Conference of Presidents, which is
the appropriate means of seeking to put it on the agenda.
3-013
Corrie (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a point of order.
The House will be aware that last week in Nigeria a
young woman was condemned to death for adultery. She
was to be stoned to death, having been buried in the
ground. After a letter from Mrs Fontaine, a number of
Members of this House and from myself, as ACP CoPresident, that death sentence was not carried out, and an
3-014
President. – Mr Corrie, the follow-up required is clear
and I shall do so. I shall communicate that to you and to
colleagues.
3-015
Thors (ELDR).  (SV) Mr President, yesterday you
showed you have a sense of history, and that prompts me
to ask a question about the European School Portal
supported by the European Commission.
Last week, a web site of this kind was opened that refers
to a Soviet history book from 1982, according to which
Finland supposedly initiated the Winter War. We all
know that the Winter War began with the ‘Mainila
shots’ staged by Stalin, and it is outrageous that the
European School Portal should contain this type of error.
It offends my national sentiment and feeling for history.
The Commission has promised to investigate the matter,
but I would ask that Parliament’s authorities too look
into the issue. It is outrageous that European schools
should allow such poor quality on its web sites
accessible via the School Portal.
3-016
President. – Thank you, Mr Thors. We will look into
that and we will communicate with you.
3-017
Korakas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, I should
like to inform both you and the House of the tremendous
damage caused by the horrendous weather which hit
Greece in December and which has still not subsided in
certain areas, where temperatures have plummeted to
below -24 degrees Celsius. Several million trees have
been destroyed, the olive and citrus crops have been
ruined; in some cases they have been completely wiped
out. The chairman of our group, Mr Wurtz, has written
to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi.
First, may I congratulate you on your appointment; then
may I ask you to start your term of office by intervening
to obtain compensation for Greek farmers who, as you
know, are the worst paid in the European Union;
compensation for the damage caused and your help in
restoring it. The situation is desperate and we must all
intervene at once and do something about it.
3-018
Documents received – Texts of agreement forwarded by the Council –
Petitions – Written declarations : See Minutes.
1
16/01/2002
Dupuis (NI). – (FR) Mr President, from his palace in
Carthage, President Ben Ali continues to repress and
dismiss judges and to subject his Tunisian political
opponents to intimidation in a number of ways. I think
that Parliament must urgently adopt a position and the
Council must issue a statement on this matter this week.
I also think that this situation is absolutely intolerable.
Parliament’s watchword should be ‘Carthago delenda
est’ or ‘Carthage must be destroyed’, as we can no
longer tolerate this regime.
7
von Wogau (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I get the
impression that there will be speakers only against the
urgent procedure, something I consider a very important
step. There is the danger that the Council will decide on
its position before Parliament's has been produced.
I consider it a matter of urgent necessity that the
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs should
deliver its opinion first, and that only then should the
Council come to a decision. It is for that reason that we
should reject this request for urgent procedure.
3-019
President. – Thank you, Mr Dupuis. There is no
proposal along those lines on the agenda at the moment
and this week we do not have a topical and urgent debate
either; but I take note of what you said and we will see
what we can do.
3-020
3-025
President. – On the basis of the two contributions we
have a consensus.
(The request for urgency was rejected)
3-026
Decision on urgent procedure
Election of Quaestors of Parliament
3-021
3-027
President. – The next item is the request for urgent
procedure on the proposal, on behalf of the Committee
of Economic and Monetary Affairs, for a Council
Directive amending Directive 92/79/EEC, Directive
92/80/EEC and Directive 95/59/EC as regards the
structure and rates of excise duty applied on
manufactured tobacco (COM(2001) 133 – C50139/2001 – 2001/0063(CNS)).
President. – The next item is the election of Quaestors
of Parliament.
I should like to ask Mrs Randzio-Plath if she is in a
position to advise us on whether or not we should grant
urgency.
3-022
Randzio-Plath (PSE), chairman of the Committee on
Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (DE) Mr President, I
would like to point out, in addition to this, that we want
to submit a second report. We hope that the Commission
is also of the opinion that there should be a compromise
with the position taken by Parliament, whose Committee
on Economic and Monetary Affairs is well known to
have voted the first proposal down, but which is now
prepared to draw up a new proposal in the Katiforis
report, one which we are keen to present to the whole
House in February. In February, the Council of Finance
Ministers will still have enough time to come to a
decision about it. Accordingly, I have also written to the
Spanish Presidency of the Council on the Committee's
behalf, and have also informed the President-in-Office
of the Council, Mr Rato of it during last week's meeting
of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
That being so, I do not think that the request for urgent
procedure should be agreed to.
3-023
President. – If they are offering to take one speaker for,
and one speaker against, the advice from the committee
is not to grant urgency. Do we have a speaker for or
against that proposal? Mr von Wogau, it is not necessary
but it is possible.
3-024
I have received notification of the following candidacies:
Balfe, Banotti, Maes, Marinho, Poos, QuisthoudtRowohl, Smet.
The candidates have confirmed to me their consent to
their candidacies. As the number of candidates exceeds
the number of seats to be filled, we will hold a secret
ballot in accordance with Rule 13(1).
In view of all the voting we had yesterday and as the
election of Quaestors runs parallel to our normal
business today, I propose under Rule 135 that we vote
using the electronic voting system.
3-028
Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, I would like very
quickly to make a genuine point of order. Mr President, I
do not believe that the procedure you are proposing will
fully guarantee the secrecy of the ballot. It is obvious
that the neighbours of the Member voting, and who
belong to the same group as that Member, can see the
screen on the voting machine. Given the circumstances,
I think this is regrettable.
3-029
President. – The procedure is consistent with the Rules
of Procedure of the House. My impression from the
reaction is that colleagues would prefer to proceed on
that basis.
That being so, I will not press the matter of a vote on the
procedure but we should then proceed to the vote on the
Quaestors.
We shall first hold a test to ensure that everybody is
familiar with the electronic voting system. Do not press
me too much on this – I learn as I go along. This is like
multilateral surveillance in stage 1 of Economic and
Monetary Union – it is learning by doing.
8
16/01/2002
3-030
Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I am as in
favour of progress as you are and I support the Lisbon
strategy for joining the computerised era, but I very
much fear that this vote, under these circumstances,
where the Members have not had the opportunity to take
lessons, raises many problems. I would recommend...
(Mixed reactions)
Excuse me, but this is a right of every Member under the
Rules of Procedure. I would recommend that the vote be
carried out by means of secret ballot papers.
3-031
President. – I take note of that.
3-032
Berthu (NI). – (FR) Mr President, my machine is not
working. Even my neighbouring colleagues who have
tried to help me cannot resolve the problem.
3-033
President. – Let us sort out Mr Berthu's machine. The
Chairman of the Socialist Group has made the point that
perhaps we should use the secret ballot system. My
impression from the test is that colleagues appear to
have mastered the intricacies of the system.
(Applause)
3-038
Poettering (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and
gentlemen, I am no expert on the Rules of Procedure. It
goes without saying that I am always ready to accept the
convictions of others when it comes to procedural issues.
When I hear though, as I do now, our esteemed
Chairman of the Socialist group demanding a paper vote
and claiming that to be the only correct form of secret
ballot, I would like to refer, Mr President, to your initial
statement to the effect that an electronic ballot is a secret
ballot and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. If
we now want to decide whether we are to vote
electronically or with ballot papers – and I approach the
issue very even-handedly, readily conceding that one
can take one view or the other – then you must let us
decide by show of hands, a simple Yes or No, on how
we are to vote. That is the only way to resolve this
procedural issue. I would recommend that we now
decide in that way, and democratically, how we want to
cast our votes.
(Applause)
3-039
President. – We know the essential point at issue.
3-034
Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, that is not
the problem. If the leader of the second largest grouping
deems it necessary to use the other system, we should
not discuss the matter and do so. If that is their wish and
they feel more comfortable doing so, we should give
them that possibility.
3-035
President. – You are quite correct that it is not my
impression that counts, no more than it is your
impression that counts, but I will take you as a speaker
in favour of having a secret ballot. Do we have a speaker
against having a secret ballot of the traditional, rather
than the electronic, type?
3-036
Goepel (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr newly-elected President
of this Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, are we, then,
more stupid than our children?
(Applause)
Are we not in a position, in this technological day and
age, to press two keys? We have had the OECD's PISA
survey, we have had appraisals, we have a new
President, we have paid a lot of money for this system,
for which we have had criticism for a long time, and
now we want to vote as if this were the Stone Age!
(Loud applause)
3-037
Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, on behalf of
the Group of the European Socialist Party, I formally
request that the vote take place in accordance with the
Rules of Procedure, which states that we should vote by
means of secret ballot papers.
Under Rule 135, "The President may at any time decide
that the voting operations indicated in Rules 133, 134
and 136 shall be carried out by means of an electronic
voting system." So the procedure to vote electronically
is perfectly consistent with the Rules. However, it is
clear that there is a division of opinion in the House as to
which is the best method to choose on this occasion.
Therefore I put to the vote whether we should proceed
with an electronic vote.
(Parliament agreed to vote electronically)
President. – The next item is the election of the
Quaestors.
There are five Quaestors so each Member has a
maximum of five votes. If you vote for more than five
candidates your vote will be void. The tellers are the
same as those for the election of the President and VicePresidents. I would ask them to vote first and then come
to the President's bench so that they can confirm the
results.
3-040
Alavanos (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, you are
quite right; the Rules of Procedure do say that you can
use electronic voting. However, because of the way it
works, it is impossible to hold a secret ballot. I know
how Mrs Ainardi voted, I know how Mrs Frahm voted, I
know how this fellow member voted and I know how
that fellow member voted. Why can we not vote
electronically, but without the asterisk? Otherwise we all
know how everyone else has voted and it is impossible
to hold a secret ballot.
16/01/2002
9
3-041
President. – We are now in the middle of the vote. This
was precisely the point that was raised in the question of
how we should vote. We voted on the matter and so we
will proceed. I take note of what you say but I cannot
now reverse that matter.
(The vote was taken).
There were 534 votes. There was one blank ballot and
533 valid votes. The majority is 267. The results for
candidates are as follows:
Banotti: 369
Quisthoudt-Rowohl: 299
Balfe: 259
Smet: 254
Poos: 221
Marinho: 189
Maes: 125
On the basis of the majority required I declare Mrs
Banotti and Ms Quisthoudt-Rowohl both elected to the
position of Quaestor.
In accordance with Rule 15(2) and Rule 16, the
Quaestors, like the Vice-Presidents, shall take
precedence in the order in which they were elected. I
declare those two candidates elected and congratulate
them on that.
(Applause)
3-044
Beazley (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a point of order.
I do not wish to delay matters. What Mr Dell'Alba has
said is absolutely right. We have proved that 99.9% of
Members of the European Parliament are capable of
keeping up with the technological skills of their children.
It would be quite absurd now not to proceed with the
concluding votes on the Quaestors.
As to the last point made by my colleague on the other
side of the House about secrecy, I have not a single clue
as to how my colleagues on this side of the House voted,
because I did not choose to peer over their shoulders.
3-045
Jackson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I have a simple
proposal to make to colleagues which is nontechnological. We should use our time to complete the
vote for Quaestors. We have spent far too long voting
this week. Mr Onesta gave us a very useful piece of
paper yesterday. I do not know whether it is symbolic,
but it is blank! This is a non-technological item, so the
socialists should not be frightened of it. Having voted,
Members should put a piece of paper – or Mr Onesta's
block – over their screen. It is quite simple.
(Laughter)
3-046
We will continue with the election of the Quaestors at
12.30 p.m., and by the same procedure.
That is what was foreseen in the agenda. If people want
to contest that they are perfectly free to do so.
3-042
Roth-Behrendt (PSE). – Mr President, on a point of
order. With all due respect I appreciate the decision the
House has taken but this has not been a secret ballot. I
know how all of my neighbouring colleagues have
voted. I appreciate that if we want to have an open ballot
we can do so, but then we should not pretend that we
have been voting secretly. We should vote openly by a
show of hands. That is my first point.
Secondly, I should like to say to our colleagues in the
PPE-DE Group that with all due respect, we could have
used ballot papers in the same time as we have taken
now. Perhaps we can now proceed in a way that is really
secret.
3-043
Dell'Alba (NI). – (FR) In my view, we have taken a
decision on this system and whether right or wrong, it is
a decision nonetheless. In future, I think that we should
properly verify the validity of a secret system that does
not guarantee secrecy. That said, we have an agenda in
which the debate on the Spanish Presidency is scheduled
to begin at 10 a.m. We still have 20 minutes thanks to
the so-called secret ballot. We are going quickly, so let
us hold a second round immediately. I think that this is
what everyone wants.
McKenna (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, on a point of
order. I agree with those who say we should use the
electronic system, as it is much quicker. However, I
would suggest that the technicians and those responsible
for this wonderful piece of equipment should modify it
in such a way that would allow us to vote on all the
candidates, plus and minus, which means that every
single one of them will have a neutral symbol beside it.
In that way, if people look at the screen to see how we
voted, they will not know. That would make it much
easier, because otherwise it is easy for people to see how
each Member voted.
3-047
President. – I am taking two more speakers and then we
will conclude this matter.
3-048
Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, my
request does not concern the electronic voting system.
Speaking on behalf of my group, what I am, in fact,
interested in is being able to vote at 12.30 p.m. and to
have the opportunity to reach political agreements later.
3-049
Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, you have
taken a decision: we must continue with the same
method of voting, despite the fact that we do not agree. I
would now ask, for the purposes of political assessment,
that this vote be postponed until 12.30 p.m.
(Protests)
3-050
10
16/01/2002
President. – I want to be clear on this. The agenda had
foreseen that the second round would be at 12.30 p.m. I
appreciate that there are political choices to be made
and, while in terms of efficiency we could now complete
the matter electronically, it is equally clear that there are
political considerations. We will take the vote at the
earliest moment but not before 12.30 p.m. In the
meanwhile, the groups have the opportunity to consult
with each other. We should proceed electronically as we
began.
(The sitting was suspended at 9.48 a.m. and resumed at
10 a.m.)
3-051-001
Spanish Presidency programme
3-052
President. – The next item is the statement by the
President-in-Office of the Council on the Spanish
Presidency programme.
This is a very important moment in terms of European
politics. After the launch of the euro, in a difficult
economic climate, there is still the need to complete the
economic and social reforms and sustainable
development as targeted at Lisbon and Stockholm; the
need to use the time this year to create the basis for an
enlarged Union; the need to launch the Convention to
make a Europe fit for the future. So I am sure this is a
very full and ambitious programme. It gives me great
pleasure to give the floor to Mr Aznar, President-inOffice of the Council.
(Applause)
3-053
Aznar, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Mr
President, honourable Members, distinguished members
of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen, it is
a great honour for me to appear here for the first time as
Spanish Prime Minister and President-in-Office of the
European Council to explain to you the priorities of the
Spanish Presidency.
The Spanish Presidency coincides with the change of
President of this Parliament. Yesterday, we attended the
election of a new President in this House and the
farewell to a President who has carried out her work
very effectively.
Mr Cox’s personality and political and institutional
career guarantee that this House and the Presidency will
enjoy fruitful political and institutional relations, which
will be aimed at strengthening the European Union and
creating a more prominent role for the European
Parliament.
The European Parliament has made a considerable
contribution to today’s European Union through its work
and its proposals, which represent a constant and
innovative quest for greater efficiency in the functioning
of the European Union. This House has also been able to
adapt its diverse European parliamentary traditions, and
try out new formulas in relations between civil society
and its political representatives, increasing democratic
control and the legitimacy of the European project.
Nothing embodies this idea better than the codecision
procedure which nevertheless needs to be improved for
the sake of transparency and efficiency. The Spanish
Presidency will therefore work to ensure that the eight
conciliations scheduled for this six-month period are
completed quickly.
Spain wishes to increase the Union’s institutional
cooperation and democratic control; I would therefore
like to guarantee the Presidency’s presence in plenary
sessions, as has become customary during the previous
Presidency. For my part, I am committed to informing
the House following the Barcelona European Council,
and carrying out a final assessment of this Presidency
after the Seville European Council.
(Applause)
Ladies and gentlemen, the current political landscape
obliges the Union to be ambitious in three areas. The
first consists of producing a response to terrorism, from
the point of view of creating an area of freedom, security
and justice. The second involves creating an area of
greater economic prosperity which safeguards the
European social model. And the third is to make a
success of the historic opportunity of enlargement and
laying the foundations for the future enlarged Union.
In order to successfully reach these goals, we need to
work for a greater deepening of Europe. By creating
‘more Europe’ we will strengthen the fight against
terrorism and ensure that the introduction of the euro is
successful and, only if we are ambitious, we will achieve
enlargement, we will make progress with the creation of
an area of greater prosperity, we will strengthen the
Union’s external role and we will carry out the next
Intergovernmental Conference successfully.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to acknowledge, and
express my gratitude for, the responsibility that this
House and the European Commission have
demonstrated in the fight against terrorism. Days before
the tragic events of 11 September, Parliament adopted a
resolution which urged the European Commission to
present various initiatives aimed at greater effectiveness
in the fight against terrorism in the European Union. We
must continue to work in the direction which you and
the European Commission indicated at that time.
Accordingly, on the basis of the rule of law, we need to
press ahead with the Plan of Action against terrorism in
the European Union to ensure that there can be no
sanctuary for terror within our borders. In December
2001 we achieved great progress in this area. All the
Institutions of the Union, and especially the Presidency
and Parliament, now need to work to ensure that the
instruments approved on that occasion come into effect
as quickly as possible. However, those instruments will
not prove effective unless we also achieve closer
cooperation between the institutions and the security
forces of the EU Member States. The Presidency
16/01/2002
therefore considers it a priority that joint investigation
teams be set up rapidly, that Europol’s work be made
more effective and that action be taken to prevent the
funding of terrorists and of those who shelter or support
them.
(Applause)
As you well know, terrorist organisations establish
cooperative links amongst themselves so that they can
operate in a manner which exceeds the limits set by our
borders. Spain wants the Union to play a more active
role in the international sphere in the fight against
terrorism. A first step towards this will be to develop
close cooperation on criminal and legal matters with the
United States, in accordance with the principles which
underpin the legal system of the European Union, as
emphasised by this House. The fight against terrorism
needs to be waged within the context of the area of
freedom, security and justice. The Presidency therefore
attaches priority to pressing ahead to formulate a
common policy on asylum and immigration, improve the
management of the Union’s external frontiers, intensify
our action against drugs trafficking and establish mutual
recognition of court rulings both in civil matters, through
the European enforcement order, and in the criminal
field. These initiatives will require close institutional
cooperation if we are to meet the deadlines set for
creating the area of freedom, security and justice.
Ladies and gentlemen, the euro has been introduced, if I
may say so, brilliantly, to say the least. By the end of the
month few people in the Eurozone will still be using the
old national currencies. This is good proof that Union
policies are accepted when they are implemented
properly and effectively. The solidity of our currency
also calls for closer coordination of economic policies.
This will mean enhancing the role of the Eurogroup,
tightening the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and
ensuring strict compliance with the Stability and Growth
Pact. The euro will also raise the profile of the
Eurozone, and this will force the Presidency to ensure
that the Union’s views are taken into account in
international forums.
We should recall that over the last decade Europe has
fallen back six points in its per capita income compared
with the United States of America. We therefore need to
press ahead with modernising our economies in order to
achieve stronger growth. Accordingly, another focus of
the Presidency’s work will be the creation of an area of
greater economic and social prosperity.
It is Spain’s intention that the Barcelona European
Council should examine five specific areas with a view
to achieving ‘More Europe’.
Firstly, we will promote the connection and opening up
of European transport and communications systems. The
Presidency will concentrate on the review of the transEuropean transport networks, on making the Single
European Sky a reality and on pressing ahead with the
liberalisation of rail transport.
11
The second area of work in Barcelona will be to design a
European energy market based on opening-up,
liberalisation,
competition,
transparency
and
interconnection. With these criteria in mind, the
Presidency will examine the opening-up of the gas and
electricity markets for companies and for consumers, the
rules on third-party access to networks and the creation
of infrastructure and interconnections between national
energy markets.
The integration of the financial markets is an absolute
precondition for the proper functioning of the single
currency and a basic prerequisite for European growth.
Spain will work to meet the deadlines of the Financial
Services Action Plan and to see that the new approach
based on the Lamfalussy report, which includes the
necessary respect for institutional balance, is applied as
soon as possible.
We are all aware that employment is the best way of
achieving social integration. As a fourth focus therefore,
and on the basis of the Luxembourg Process in its
current framework, the Barcelona European Council will
seek a greater emphasis on the Employment Strategy in
the analysis of the structural inflexibilities of our labour
markets, in our tax and social protection systems and in
the institutions of the labour market.
To get a good job, you undoubtedly first need access to a
sound education which facilitates student mobility.
Accordingly, the fifth point at Barcelona will be the
Work Programme on education systems for the year
2010. We need to step up the quality of Europe’s
education systems and open them up further to the rest
of the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, in Barcelona, the candidate
countries will take part in a working session of the
European Council for the first time. In my opinion,
integrating the candidates into our work on economic
and social modernisation will be the best political signal
of our support for the enlargement process upon which
the Union has embarked.
There is no doubt that enlargement will turn the page on
a bitter episode in our continent’s past. It will bring in
countries that belong to the European family, countries
which share our values and which have been treated
badly by the vicissitudes of history. The Spanish
Presidency’s political will is to help ensure that all those
countries that are ready can conclude their negotiations
by the end of this year, 2002.
On the basis of the current acquis communautaire and
the Financial Perspective, we will, during the Spanish
Presidency, be negotiating the chapters relating to
agriculture, regional policy and social cohesion policy,
financial and budgetary provisions and institutional
issues. Spain will also be seeking the closure of all those
chapters that have not yet been concluded. For the
negotiations to be rounded off definitively, all the
Members of the Union will need to demonstrate their
12
ability to compromise, the Commission will need to
present its proposals on time and, above all, an effort
will be required from each of the candidate countries.
Progress will be assessed at the Seville European
Council in June.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we also know, and
it is our wish, that the European Union is destined to
fulfil an important and growing political function on the
international stage. The success of European integration
and Europe’s economic and commercial weight are
forcing an ever greater and more important external
political profile on the Union. The current international
context requires us to step up the Union’s presence in
areas where peace and security are directly threatened.
The Spanish Presidency therefore hopes to help develop
an ambitious comprehensive regional strategy in Central
Asia and Afghanistan to prevent the emergence of new
areas of conflict.
But there will be no point in providing a European
presence if we lack the capacity for effective crisis
management and, specifically, military forces for limited
operations requiring a rapid response. This objective
should be achieved in the near future, when the
European Security and Defence Policy effectively comes
into operation and when the definitive pattern is
established for a relationship of consultation and
cooperation with the Atlantic Alliance. In this same area,
Spain also proposes to launch a discussion on making
the fight against terrorism an objective of the European
Security and Defence Policy.
The credibility of the Union’s foreign policy will rest not
only on its international presence, but also on effective
instruments for implementing that policy and, above all,
on a high degree of mutual consultation. On this last
point, Spain attaches priority to developing the European
Union’s relations with North America and with Russia.
With North America we need to reinforce the transAtlantic dialogue, giving it greater and renewed strategic
content. With Russia, Spain believes the European
Union needs to support the strategy that country is
currently implementing. Accordingly, one of the
Presidency’s objectives will be to consolidate EU
relations with Russia, relations based on specific points
and tangible progress.
Ladies and gentlemen, next May in Madrid, the
European Union will be holding its Second Summit with
Latin America and the Caribbean with a view to
renewing and promoting the strategic association
between the two geographical regions. One objective of
the Summit will be to work with Chile in order to make
progress on the Association and Free Trade Agreement
and push forward the Union’s negotiations with
Mercosur. In addition, the European Union will be
holding specific meetings with the Andean Community
and Central America. At this point, I am bound to refer
to our interest in and concern regarding the developing
situation in Argentina. The European Union will work
with the Argentine authorities to find realistic solutions
based on dialogue, solutions which will restore
16/01/2002
confidence and enable the Argentine economy to
achieve new growth and competitiveness.
Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union will also
play an important role in achieving stability in the
Middle East. For this we will need to step up our
coordination with the United States and the other
sponsors of the Peace Process. I hope that the recent
European Union Declaration and the contacts
established in the last few days on the initiative of the
Spanish Presidency will help resolve a situation of
instability which is affecting the countries of the region
and the Mediterranean in general.
The Middle East conflict is a major factor influencing
the progress of the Barcelona Process, the only forum
for dialogue which brings together all those involved in
the Peace Process, who are due to meet at the
forthcoming Ministerial Summit in Valencia. Spain will
also push for the conclusion of the outstanding
Association Agreements between the European Union
and the countries bordering the Mediterranean, and will
work for the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean internal
market and the development of the regional strategies on
infrastructure. To help achieve this objective, the Laeken
European Council, acting on a Spanish initiative, took
up the idea of creating a bank specialising in operations
in the Mediterranean countries, an idea we will be
working on over the next few months in collaboration
with the European Investment Bank and the monetary
authorities.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are convinced that it is only
by encouraging balanced development that we will be
able to tackle illegal immigration effectively. Aware of
the enormous importance of this phenomenon, Spain,
with the backing of China and Vietnam, has been
working for some time to ensure the success of the
ministerial meeting on immigration to be held between
the European Union and the Asian members of ASEM.
We know that illegal immigration is the result of poverty
and underdevelopment. This is why the Spanish
Presidency attaches particular importance to the
Monterrey Summit on Financing Development, which
we are preparing in close cooperation with the United
States and Mexico.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think it is safe to say that few
people could have imagined that 45 years after the
signing of the Treaties of Rome, 300 million Europeans
would be using the same currency. We need to pursue
this successful course, in what is a key period for the
Union. This will require greater involvement of the
people of Europe in shaping the future of the Union.
The Laeken European Council decided to set up a
Convention on the future of Europe. That Convention
will be holding its first session on 28 February in the
European Parliament in Brussels. What place could
better reflect both the importance of the new phase the
European Union is going through and the recognition the
Presidency wishes to give to the European Parliament’s
work on the future of Europe. The Spanish Presidency is
16/01/2002
firmly set on contributing to the success of the
Convention. That success will be the key to
consolidating the process of gradual constitutionalisation
of the Treaties we are currently engaged in, and to
ensuring that such Conventions are in future perceived
as a good method of preparing intergovernmental
conferences. I hope that the President of the Convention
will be able, as agreed, to present an initial report on the
Convention’s work to the Seville European Council in
June.
Ladies and gentlemen, I came here today to set out the
priorities of the Spanish Presidency. Those priorities
should translate into greater de facto solidarity, a
solidarity which will enable us, on the basis of balance
and of mutual respect for diverse interests, to continue
consolidating the greatest period of peace, prosperity
and freedom Europe has ever known. We know this will
be a complex and arduous task, on account both of the
number of issues we will need to apply ourselves to and
of the ambitious nature of our goals. But it is only by
virtue of that ambition, and on the basis of close
collaboration between the institutions, that we will be
able, as I am sure we will, to make this project a reality,
a project whose ultimate purpose is to improve the lives
of all the people of Europe.
Thank you very much for your attention.
(Applause)
3-054
Prodi, President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr
President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, this
past New Year’s Eve, all of Europe celebrated the
launch of the euro with great joy. Barely two weeks have
gone by since then, but those two weeks have been
enough to see us complete almost the entire transition to
the new notes and coins. In the twelve Euro-zone
countries, 90% of payments are now being made in the
single currency: the changeover to the euro has been
both a huge task and a huge success. We can all feel
proud of that success because we have all contributed to
it: the European Parliament and national parliaments,
governments, the European Central Bank and the
Member States’ central banks, the Commission,
commercial banks, post offices, retailers, businesses, the
media and every one of our citizens who have helped to
bring about this historic changeover.
For millions of European citizens, the euro notes and
coins in their pockets are a tangible sign of the great
political project of building a united Europe. As a
symbol of that unity, the euro is having an even greater
psychological impact than the abolition of passport
controls at Europe’s internal borders. The euro is thus
becoming a key element in people’s sense of a shared
European identity and a common destiny, just as it is
tangible evidence that European integration is now
irreversible.
The changeover to the euro shows that the Europeans are
willing to embrace change enthusiastically and
13
resolutely if that change is for the sake of a better future,
and if all the issues involved are discussed thoroughly
and openly. The changeover to the euro shows the scale
of what Europe can achieve when it can muster the
necessary political will. We must take this as a valuable
lesson and apply it in the preparations for all the stages
in the process of integration.
Mr President, Prime Minister, Spain has chosen the
motto “More Europe” for its six-month presidency of the
Union. I think we can say, just after the launch of the
euro, that Spain could not have chosen better.
Prime Minister, your government has also devised a
broad but balanced and ambitious programme, and I am
very pleased to see that the priorities it sets out match
the priorities that the Commission has set itself for 2002.
I can therefore assure you that you can count on the
Commission’s full support.
Mr President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the
same ambition that has led to the success of the launch
of the new European currency must now be shown and
exploited again to accomplish the Union’s Economic
and Social Agenda. We have achieved monetary union.
The time has now come to focus on economic union, and
to make it a tangible reality. We need the economic
growth that will generate jobs and a better quality of life.
Almost two years have passed since the European
Council in Lisbon set the goal of making the Union the
world’s most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based
economic area by the end of this decade, an area which
would also enjoy full employment and increased
economic and social cohesion. Since that time, the
Spring Councils have provided the opportunity to
discuss economic, social and environmental issues as
part of a wide-ranging strategy for sustainable
development. The Barcelona Council will, therefore, be
called upon to assess the progress we have made so far
and to set priorities for the coming years. In preparation
for the Council, yesterday, the Commission adopted its
Spring Report, which will provide the basis for the
Council’s work and which, this year, bears the title ‘The
Lisbon strategy — making change happen’.
Yesterday’s Commission communication has a central
message: the time has come to stick to our commitments
and to speed up reform. We have no choice: the strategy
adopted at Lisbon is the key to developing and
consolidating our European economic and social model.
Indeed, we are reforming a society that already has its
own shared values, values that distinguish Europe from
the rest of the world and on which the European Union
is founded. It is precisely these values that we have in
mind when we speak of the ‘European social model’.
On this basis, we have to continue to update the kind of
model of society we want and can achieve in Europe: the
kind of free, fair, democratic society that our fellowcitizens hold so dear. This is not about devaluing or
getting rid of our social heritage: it is about adapting it
and modernising it so as to ensure that it lasts. We have
14
a duty to history, a duty to protect future generations and
a duty to respond to globalisation, and all the more so at
this time of great uncertainty and risk when genuine,
practical solidarity – not just superficial, partial
solidarity – has become very important for our citizens,
especially the weakest among them.
The Commission’s report looks at the progress made so
far in implementing the Lisbon strategy and concludes
that all the prerequisites for success are there. On the
macroeconomic front, the efforts made over the last ten
years towards introducing the euro have enabled the
Union to achieve economic stability and have protected
it from the worst of the international economic and
financial crises. Even at this time of economic
slowdown, the bases of Europe’s economy have
remained sound.
Encouraging progress has also been made in
implementing the strategy adopted at Lisbon. Significant
results have been achieved in a number of areas such as
the environment, telecommunications, education,
pension reform and research, but progress has not been
as good in other areas, with Commission proposals
stalled and the deadlines set by the European Council
itself in jeopardy. Among these areas are some that are
essential to the integration of financial, transport and
energy services, the Community patent and the Galileo
project. I am pleased to see, Mr President, that you have
made these areas a priority for your action in the coming
months. We need to catch up, and catch up fast. Our
credibility and, more importantly, our chances of making
real progress depend on it. If there is no change, we will
end up with less growth and less jobs.
The Commission report sets three priorities for 2002:
employment, reform and knowledge. First, employment.
Europe needs an active employment policy. More needs
to be done to remove the obstacles that still prevent
people from finding employment or which make it
difficult for them to keep their jobs. Member States must
cut the cost of labour by reducing taxation that affects
wages and salaries – especially low wages. They must
also review those aspects of their unemployment benefit
systems that dissuade people from returning to the
labour market and they must make it less easy for them
to take early retirement. We need better childcare, in
order to improve women’s presence in the workforce.
We need incentives for those who decide to stay in work
longer. Employment rates can also be maintained by
improving skills, education and individuals’ mobility
within Europe and between production sectors. In other
words, we need an active, not a passive approach to
change.
Second, reform, and completing the internal market. We
need to connect Europe and its markets. Much greater
effort must be made to achieve an interconnection of
national markets and to speed up the integration of
financial markets, concluding the reforms already
underway. We need to open up and connect the energy
and transport markets and develop Europe’s broadband
networks. These industries are the backbone of our
16/01/2002
economy. We need greater competition to bring prices
down and stimulate growth while maintaining a
sufficient standard of basic services for everyone.
Third, education, training and research. Education,
training and research really are the keys to economic
renewal, sustainable growth and job creation. There can
be no ‘knowledge-based society’ without knowledge.
Therefore, we need to invest much more heavily in these
areas. We need an integrated strategy for Communitylevel education and research, based on networking and
mobility and giving priority to the technologies of the
future, to biotechnology and clean technologies, for
example.
Finally, our report states the need, after Barcelona, to
introduce measures to strengthen coordination of our
overall economic strategy. This means building a
consensus on principles and rules of economic policy
that take account of economic interdependence within
the euro zone.
Accordingly, we need to synchronise the three current
processes – the broad economic policy guidelines, the
employment guidelines and the process of economic
reform launched at Cardiff – so that, each year, the
Spring Council can review economic and social policy
as a whole and make sure it is sustainable. Only a more
coherent approach will enable us to make full, effective
use of the various instruments at our disposal. It is time
to give up the old, sectorally-fragmented methods.
Prime Minister, the President of the Commission has to
play a sometimes rather uncomfortable role at European
Councils – that of being the one who reminds those he is
working with of the need to honour undertakings made
collectively. However, I remain confident that you will
support me at Barcelona when I urge the Member States
to push ahead resolutely with the agenda of reforms
agreed at Lisbon, in line with the report’s
recommendations. We are responsible for making sure
that the Barcelona Council achieves total success. If the
process grinds to a halt, the cost of ‘non-reform’ would
become unbearable both in economic terms and in terms
of the Union’s political credibility.
Ladies and gentlemen, 2002 will be a crucial year for the
enlargement process, and we know that – as we have
heard – the Spanish Presidency will be making every
effort to keep up the momentum, so that we can
conclude negotiations this year with those countries that
have shown that they meet the criteria for accession.
Vital though it is to the Union’s future, eastward
enlargement is not the only external issue requiring the
Union’s attention. Relations with the countries of the
Mediterranean are, of necessity, a priority for the Union
in its external activities. I look forward to seeing EuroMediterranean dialogue move decisively forwards under
the Spanish Presidency – after all, it was in Barcelona
that the dialogue was launched. To this end, we must
adopt a more flexible approach, setting up, together with
16/01/2002
some groups of countries on the southern shores of the
Mediterranean, new forms of sub-regional cooperation.
Secondly, we have to put into practice the idea, formed
jointly by the Presidency of the Council and the
Commission, of a 'Mediterranean Development Bank’.
Irrespective of whether it is an independent bank or part
of the European Investment Bank, it is to be a forum
dedicated to development, in which European and
Southern Mediterranean operators work side by side.
In addition, it is vital to promote mutual understanding
and knowledge between peoples and cultures, through
specific actions on various fronts. Indeed, I feel that it is
precisely by exporting our experience of peacemaking
and our commitment to promoting democracy that we
will be able to take “More Europe” to the rest of the
world.
Prime Minister, you have pointed out that Latin
America, though very distant from us geographically, is
very close to Europe’s culture and origins, having shared
a long period of history with many European countries.
This is a time when the Union must show particularly
strong solidarity with Argentina and all of Mercosur, as
they experience serious crisis.
Argentina needs to return to the path of economic
growth, the only way for it to improve its present
difficult social situation. There is only one recipe for
achieving this goal: restoring confidence. Confidence in
political institutions, confidence in the stability of the
rule of law and confidence in a credible, coherent
economic programme. Our experience of financial
reform and economic development driven by trade and
integration could be of valuable help to Latin America as
it endeavours to recover, with advantages for all
involved.
Mr President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I
would now like to finish by saying a few words on the
Convention that will be beginning its work under the
Spanish Presidency.
The Convention’s great significance will give it the
chance to write an exciting chapter in Europe’s history.
We all have a duty to do all we can to ensure that this
does indeed happen. I have already assured its
Chairman, Mr Giscard d’Estaing, that he will have the
full support of the Commission and the Commission’s
representatives to the Convention. The Commission
expects to work just as closely with the European
Parliament, as the legitimate representative of the hopes
of the people of Europe. We must ensure that the debate
is full and fruitful and, most importantly, that it delivers
a vision for the future with which the majority of our
citizens can identify. The Convention and the
subsequent
Intergovernmental
Conference
must
complete the construction of an open, accountable,
democratic and fair Europe.
(Applause)
15
3-055
Poettering (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr
President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the
Commission, ladies and gentlemen: Mr President-inOffice of the Council, you have arrived in Parliament at
a time when we are engaged in organising our work for
the second half of this term. Our attainment of the great
objectives of which you have spoken is dependent on
technical on behalf of Europe. Our group warmly
welcomes you to Parliament.
You have yourself observed that you are here for the
first time. We emphatically welcome the fact that you
will be here in Parliament on three occasions as
President-in-Office of the Council and as Prime Minister
of Spain to give an account of the decisions reached
under your Presidency. We are grateful to you for that,
and we hope that all following Presidencies will learn
from your example. We also, though, expect greater
transparency in the Council of Ministers and ask of you
that the report the Council is now drafting should also
lead to real results, making an important step forward
towards greater transparency in the Council of Ministers
possible under your Presidency.
You have spoken, too, about terrorism, and we stand
shoulder to shoulder with you. There is no such thing as
good and bad terrorism. There is only terrorism, and we
must say loud and clear that wherever people are
deliberately being killed, whether by ETA in Spain,
whether on 11 September, whether in the Middle East or
anywhere else in the world, it must be countered by
decisive protest from us, and we must combat terrorism
with the utmost determination and make democracy and
the rule of law the foundation of relations between
peoples and people.
(Applause)
I very much welcomed your reference to Russia, Mr
President-in-Office. Whilst needing good relations with
Russia, we are aware that there are at present the gravest
abuses of human rights taking place in Chechnya. As
Christian and European democrats, we declare that the
life of a peaceful Muslim in Chechnya or anywhere else
in the world is of the same value as the life of a Christian
or a non-Christian in the West. We must defend human
dignity throughout the world.
(Applause)
You have also spoken about the euro, and we support
what you have said. Let us, in this hour of joy over the
euro, which the President of the Commission has
described as a gigantic project, let us remember – for the
euro has many parents, indeed only too many fathers –
that it was people such as Helmut Kohl, the Honorary
Citizen of Europe, François Mitterrand and Jacques
Delors, who, with the support of others, advanced this
great project in those days. I would like also to invoke
the name of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the chairman of
the Convention, who, with Helmut Schmidt and others
in the Seventies, prepared the way for the European
16
Monetary System. I congratulate you on your choice of
him.
What now matters is that we pursue a policy of stability,
for things are changing. I recall how friends in my party
looked at Italy before the introduction of the euro,
doubted whether Italy should join the common currency
and wondered whether policies of stability were really
pursued there. I do not want to single out any one
country, but all of what we hear today from Italy
indicates that the countries in which Italy was formerly
criticised could rightly have the same criticism levelled
at them today, as they have not been doing what is
needed for the stability of the European currency. So let
there be restructuring of the budget!
16/01/2002
We strongly support you in the Mediterranean dialogue.
We must ensure that people in the countries along the
Mediterranean that do not belong to the European Union
have a chance and prospects in their own country – in
Morocco, in Algeria, everywhere, even in the Arab
countries – and do not all come to us. We must help
them in this, and I very much welcome the initiatives of
the Spanish Presidency. We wish you every success on
your way. There will always be a warm welcome for you
from us in Parliament. If you meet with success, then it
is a success for us all, for the Council Presidency, for
Parliament, for the Commission and for the European
Union that we share. Great success for you personally,
but also for your presidency.
(Applause)
We must consolidate Europe as an economic base,
which means that it is the small and medium-sized
enterprises that we must promote by means of a sensible
and moderate fiscal policy, something we strongly
support. In order that we might go in the same direction,
we need coordination in economic policy and in stability
policy – coordination rather than harmonisation.
Mr President-in-Office, I very much welcome what you
had to say about the Convention. We will quite happily
offer the use of our group's meeting room – another
great group has met there before, so they may well agree
to the offer – but the spirit of our meeting room is today
particularly well suited to working on the European
project.
I have something to ask of you, Mr President-in-Office.
It is with great joy that we have heard that our colleague,
the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg and one-time
President of the European Commission, Jacques Santer,
has been appointed by the government of Luxembourg,
that is, by Luxembourg's Prime Minister, Jean-Claude
Juncker, as Luxembourg's representative to the
Convention.
(Applause)
We ask you most sincerely to exert your influence as
President-in-Office of the Council so that all
governments send personalities to this Convention
whose words carry weight in the national capitals and
governments, so that what is decided in the Convention
may also have something of a cohesive effect on the
national governments in the countries of the European
Union.
Let me turn to a final aspect, namely enlargement and
the Mediterranean dialogue. We are right alongside you
as far as the timing for 2002 and the conclusion of the
first accession treaties is concerned. Our Group has
decided that observers should be sent as soon as possible
to the European Parliament from the countries with
which the treaties are to be signed – observers who
would pass on information to these countries until the
European elections, when representatives from these
countries will sit as equals in the European Parliament.
3-056
President. – Let me take this opportunity to congratulate
Mr Santer on his appointment by Luxembourg to the
Convention.
3-057
Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr
President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the
Commission, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would
like to thank the Spanish Presidency for appearing here
so quickly, in accordance with what has now become the
custom, and I would point out that we have passed the
mid-point of the legislature with a clear conservative
shift in the Council, which, Mr President, is confirmed
by your position as President of the CDI – the Centre
Democratic International for you and the Christian
Democratic International for Mr Poettering; in any
event, conservative.
Your presidency’s programme follows the normal
tendency for the Council’s six-month approach of
aiming for as many successes as possible. But, of course,
it is not sufficient to reap the harvest, but we must also
sow seeds and tend the crop. Mr President, please allow
me to analyse the six objectives of the Spanish
Presidency, which you have summed up in three
categories, in the light of this approach.
I shall mention firstly the area of freedom, justice and
security, with the fight against terrorism as a priority.
You have rightly acknowledged that the European
Parliament acted as a pioneer by stating that there was a
need for a Community anti-terrorist policy. It did so
before 11 September. We worked very hard on the
Commission’s proposals and would have this policy by
now were it not for the inefficiency of the Council,
which sent us the consultations in December. My
political family is entirely in favour of this objective. It
is your family which has the problems, but we intend to
help you.
Secondly, I will mention the euro. We owe the success
of the euro above all to our fellow citizens. We must
acknowledge this, because we also criticise the fact that
we are distant from the citizens, but on this occasion,
ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January, they have moved
ahead of us. For once we can say that it has also been a
16/01/2002
success for the Commission, which has been responsible
for the operation, for President Prodi, who, when he was
President of Ecofin, made it possible for Italy to join the
euro together with the current President of the Republic,
while the current government of that country partly
chose, on I January, to denigrate the single currency. It
has also been a success for Commissioner Pedro Solbes,
who was the Spanish Minister for the Economy in
December 1995.
(Mixed reactions)
Because, ladies and gentlemen, both the euro and
Economic and Monetary Union were born in Madrid.
Mr President, I imagine that all this commotion will not
be counted as part of my speaking time.
Let us hope that this Spanish Presidency can match up to
previous presidencies. The euro is also a success for the
European Central Bank, for the financial institutions, for
the hundreds of thousands of anonymous citizens who
went to work on 1 January, and we must recognise that it
has also been a success for Pierre Werner, for Valéry
Giscard d’Estaing, for Helmut Schmidt, for François
Mitterrand, for Helmut Kohl, for Ruud Lubbers, for
Giulio Andreotti, for John Major, for Felipe González
and also for Jacques Santer, as President of the
Commission. I think it is right to acknowledge this.
The challenge now is to create an Economic Union
which matches Monetary Union – as the President of the
Commission pointed out – and also develop the Lisbon
strategy, which in our opinion means sustainable
development, more social cohesion, more full
employment, more competitiveness. In this regard, Mr
President-in-Office of the Council, I would draw your
attention to the European Parliament’s resolution on
services of general interest, which is very explicit. It is
not sufficient to privatise services without liberalising,
because that simply means replacing public monopolies
with private ones. There must be rules to protect citizens
and consumers. Look what has happened with Enron and
what your government had to do about the Christmas
power cuts, when it asked for the illuminations to be
postponed by two hours.
With regard to enlargement, it falls to you to make
progress on something which you not going to be able
harvest, but you have to do it and I welcome the fact that
you are taking this on responsibly.
With regard to the European Union’s international
action, I believe that, as well as the need to persevere in
the Middle East and relaunch the Euro-Mediterranean
process, Latin America, and Argentina in particular,
should currently be the focus of attention. We share your
concern. We believe that we should respond in a
decisive fashion, led by the Commission. We Europeans
have historical debts and links with Argentina, with
those people who fled hunger or oppression. We must
tell the Argentinians that they must believe in their
country, in their values and that we will be able to help
17
them. I would ask the Commission to put forward a
practical proposal in this field.
Lastly, Mr President, I will comment on the debate on
the Convention and governance. We welcome the
historic milestone represented by the establishment of
the Convention. We have been fighting for it for many
years. The European Council has accepted the idea of
doubling the European and national parliamentary
presence. Your presence has been increased more, with
the troika and the presidential triumvirate, but we have
gained in a relative sense. You are perfect hosts. You
have not said what you think about ‘more Europe’. Is it a
cause for amendment? In any event, Mr President, I
believe that the great majority of this House is in favour
of constitutionalising the process, of creating a
Federation of States and Citizens.
Ladies and gentlemen, we do not see the Convention as
a battle between parties and in this regard I must point
out that Mr Berlusconi said in Le Monde on 12 January
that we are in favour of centralising everything.
Centralising what? The media? In this respect we really
are willing to jointly defend our project.
A final word on governance and codecision. You
applaud the Mandelkern report, but we are not familiar
with it and that concerns us very much. We have yet to
debate the Lamfalussy procedure. We do not support the
report of a distinguished official of the Council whom
we do not know and which may go against the principle
of codecision. You must speak to us and sow and tend
the crop, as well as harvesting it.
(Applause)
3-058
President. – Let me remind group chairmen and
colleagues that we have votes scheduled for later this
morning. I should like to keep on schedule.
3-059
Watson (ELDR). – Mr President! Prime Minister, you
have chosen More Europe as the theme for your
presidency. Liberal Democrats hope that this will be
reflected in your commitment to enlargement of the
European Union. Just as this House insisted on Iberian
enlargement some 15 years ago, despite doubts in certain
national capitals, so we will militate for an early and
successful eastward enlargement in which 2002 will be
crucial. We will judge your presidency primarily by your
achievements in preparing the reunification of our
continent.
We wish you success, too, in your efforts to guide
smoothly the introduction of the euro. As one who saw
in the New Year in France, I am particularly grateful for
Spain's role in lending Chirac and Jospin a little small
change. Perhaps next time you see Tony Blair you will
hand him a few coins as well and ask him whether his
indecision is final. British entry into the euro would
certainly mean the kind of More Europe we would like
to see.
18
(Applause)
Your vision of the future speaks of new transnational
challenges. Relations between India and Pakistan are
deeply worrying but Afghanistan must be uppermost in
our minds. Soon the bombing must stop and the building
must begin. We must respond to the plight of the people
through generous giving from our aid budget and more
help in patrolling the peace.
Your programme speaks of a war against terrorism. This
is no conventional war and it will not be won with
conventional weapons. Some of us fear that military
intelligence, which is leading to bombing and military
solutions, may be causing collateral damage and storing
up other problems for the future. We hope that Europe
can offset this collateral damage by adding to our
armoury emotional intelligence, recognising that
political problems often require political solutions.
You kindly referred to my report on terrorism, adopted
on 6 September last year. I would draw your attention,
too, to our resolution on cooperation between the United
States and the European Union in the fight against
terrorism. Liberal Democrats view with deep unease the
divergence between the US approach of emergency laws
and military tribunals and the rights-based approach that
we want for the Union. We insist that you can be both
tough on terrorism and true to our Treaties.
(Applause)
You will take forward the building of the area of
freedom, security and justice defined in the Amsterdam
Treaty. Your presidency programme asserts that current
exceptional circumstances require putting security first.
If this is true we will nonetheless push you to make sure
that freedom and justice are not far behind.
In drafting a programme like this any presidency faces a
dilemma. We recognise that. A list of priorities soon
becomes a universal catalogue. Each Member State
brings something different to the party. While we
welcome the input that Spain can make to the Barcelona
Process and Euro-Med, we are nonetheless fascinated to
read in your programme that the European Union's
northern dimension is one of your priorities. We will
follow development in this matter closely.
The reform of the Council that you talk about is most
welcome. We hope that you will ensure that the Council
abides by its undertaking to allow public access to
documents and that it seeks better relations with this
House, which, sadly, does not get a mention in your
programme until page 20. This House is the true
democratic forum of our continent and we want to see its
rights respected.
If for my Group something is missing in this document it
is a recognition of Europe's different regions and
cultures. It reads to me as a rather Castilian programme
that does not reflect entirely the Spain which I have
visited and the Spain that is represented in my Group.
16/01/2002
What has become of the work of the eminent DirectorGeneral in the Commission, Mr Eneko Landaburu? Your
second definition of More Europe talks about 'signifying
the European nature of Spanish society.' Our second
definition of More Europe would be that it signifies the
contribution of all Iberian cultures and the flowering
thereof among other European cultures in the creation of
a Europe whose strength is not that of a monolithic state
with deciduous development, but one of unity through
diversity. In wishing you every success, Prime Minister,
I look forward to a vigorous debate with the Spanish
Presidency.
(Applause)
3-060
Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President-in-Office of
the Council, first of all, I would like to welcome you to
this House. We hope that you enjoy these six months
and also that cooperation with the European Parliament
continues to be as positive and open as it was during the
Belgian Presidency.
In a constructive spirit, I would just like, on behalf of the
Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, to express
certain doubts and criticisms that we have concerning
the focus of the programme you have just presented.
Setting the objective of ‘more Europe’ does not
necessarily mean wanting a better Europe in the sense of
creating a Europe of more democracy, openness and
solidarity.
3-061
(IT) The Spanish Presidency has decided to focus very
strongly on combating terrorism. This is certainly a
legitimate reflection of Spain’s national policy of
eliminating ETA violence once and for all. However, it
would appear important to emphasise that it is neither
acceptable nor effective to imagine that terrorist violence
can be curbed by reducing the significance of some of
the most important victories of the European
democracies and the Union such as respect for
individual freedoms, citizens’ equality before the law
and parliamentary control at European as well as
national level of all decisions on this matter. We would
certainly have been much happier if you had shown your
intention to uphold these concepts more clearly.
Moreover, it is a matter of no small concern that the
Spanish government is concentrating on cooperation
with the United States without, at the same time,
distancing the Union from those decisions of the US
administration which place it outside the rule of law and
which could lead to a militarisation of the legal system.
Similarly, talking about an international anti-terrorism
alliance but remaining silent on the way the Russian
government is continuing to terrorise and destroy
Chechnya does nothing for the European Union’s
credibility.
(Applause)
16/01/2002
Secondly, Mr President-in-Office, your government’s
programme includes a list of themes, but it does not
clearly define the political vision for European
integration. Further evidence of this is the fact that the
only task you are entrusting to the Convention, which
will start work in two months’ time, is the preparation of
tangible, realistic options to submit to the 2004
Conference. Yet, as you are quite aware, this Convention
is the product of the failure of Nice, and its success will
be measured in terms of its ability to constitute a break
with the intergovernmental method of reforming the
Union and to involve representatives of the people and
civil society in the process of European integration.
It is my fervent hope that the Spanish Presidency will
support this innovative experiment and accept calmly
that we have reached the stage where it is no longer just
the States but the citizens and their representatives at
European, national and regional levels as well – at
regional level too – who can and must be involved in
shaping the future of the European Union.
On the subject of shared values, I would like to ask you
not to underestimate the European dimension of what
has been happening in my native country, Italy, where
the principle of the separation of powers is constantly
being challenged and where there is still a problem with
the concentration of media power combined with an
unresolved conflict of interests.
Thirdly, we are greatly concerned at the cursory
treatment in your programme of the issue of sustainable
development and the urgent need to respond with
practical, incisive action to the environmental challenges
facing us. It would appear that this cursory treatment is a
direct result of an antiquated idea that the priorities of
economic growth and safeguarding the environment and
quality of life are still conflicting. In fact, the opposite is
true. However, and I cannot stress this enough, the
environmental constraints governing the economic,
social and fiscal policies of the Union and its Member
States continue to be inadequate.
In this connection, I would very briefly like to give you
two negative examples, which directly concern Spain.
The first is the national hydrological plan, against which
there is strong opposition in your country, Mr Aznar:
400 000 people protesting in Madrid and 10 000 in
Brussels, as well as 25 000 individual complaints to the
Commission cannot be ignored, and we will make this
matter a priority in our work. We do not accept the claim
that the hydrological plan is purely a Spanish affair, not
just because the Spanish government wants EUR 8
billion from the Structural Funds to be spent on
financing part of it but because, if it were to be
implemented, it would violate European legislation on
nature conservation and the safeguarding of water
resources and would lead to a distortion of competition
in the agricultural sector. Also, finally, because the real
purpose of the plan is to transfer water resources from
poor regions to wealthy regions in order to serve waterintensive farming and tourism development. This is a
19
recipe for disaster, which has already caused havoc that
we cannot allow to be repeated.
I have other things to say to you, Mr President-in-Office,
regarding the liberalisation of the electricity market, but
I will save them for another time. In any case, I wish you
a successful six month’s work.
(Applause)
3-062
Jové Peres (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, Mr
President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the
Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish
Presidency has come at a time of international difficulty
and it must therefore deal with highly topical issues. In
order to deal with these issues, as you said, Mr Aznar,
we will need ‘more Europe’.
The introduction of the euro has created a new reality.
The most important task, Mr Aznar, is to supplement the
euro in the economic and social fields. You have
expressed your intention to carry out what you call new
economic reforms. In the language of the Confederal
Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left,
this means promoting the social aspects of European
integration in a decisive manner and strengthening
economic and social cohesion. We believe that Europe is
not going to improve its economic cohesion and
development by means of policies of liberalisation and
privatisation, by means of employment deregulation
which endangers jobs and by reducing levels of social
protection and by tax reforms which make fiscal systems
less sufficient and less progressive.
Furthermore, Mr Aznar, the international economic
situation demands imagination and flexibility. We
believe that we should not confront it shackled by a
rigorous and excessively restrictive notion of the
stability pact. The fact that the world economy is now
close to recession is beyond question, Mr Aznar. The
European Union needs political impetus and
democratisation of its economic decision-making. We
need budgets geared towards employment and economic
and social cohesion. The stability pact must be made
more flexible and at least preserve public investment
when there are excessive deficits, and this is an
expenditure which is an essential element for the future
development of the Union and also, in the short term, an
element which will increase and stimulate economic
activity. It is essential to supplement the single currency
with a process of harmonisation in the fiscal,
employment and social fields, building a genuine
economic policy – not just monetary – and making
decisive progress towards a social Europe. Lastly, Mr
Aznar, it worries us that there is no attempt to strengthen
public services, which would reflect a social view of
European integration.
Many fashionable reforms in our countries put an end to
public monopolies in strategic sectors, only to convert
them in many cases into private oligopolies, which
makes them difficult to control publicly and which does
20
not lead to any real increase in efficiency. I could cite
various examples in different countries concerning rail
transport, health systems or electrical supplies.
Therefore, Mr Aznar, in summary, we believe that the
Barcelona Summit should reflect this type of concern
and adopt a much more dynamic and stronger view of
European social integration.
You will recognise, as I do, that, on this issue, I am
obviously expressing the existing differences, as you
know, between our different political forces. Of course,
Mr Aznar, the negotiations on the bases of the
enlargement agreement – as the Spanish Presidency has
said, and I agree with it – must be concluded during this
six-month period. Otherwise, enlargement will not be
possible in 2004.
In this regard, Mr Aznar, I would like to make the
following comment: a Union of 27 States – with
enlargement to a further 10 States – will increase the
surface area of the European Union by 34%, it will
increase the population by more than 28%, but the
Community income will increase by barely 5%. Do we
really appreciate the political challenge posed by
enlargement? Do we really appreciate the degree to
which social problems may be exacerbated as a result of
enlargement? In the current European Union, 16% of the
population have a per capita income which is 90% lower
than the Community average, and in the Union of 27
States, for example, this proportion would rise to 34%.
We therefore believe that for the first time, unlike what
happened with the so-called Delors packages, where in
successive enlargements of the area of the internal
market there were firm commitments in relation to
decisive increases in economic and social cohesion, we
are now in a situation in which economic and social
cohesion – as was expressed in the Delors packages –
must be thoroughly strengthened and increased. We
would therefore like an unequivocal signal in this regard.
It is possible that the agricultural negotiation will end
with the implementation of a transitional period that will
go beyond the deadline of 2006. The problem will be
what to do next. Agriculture, like any economic activity,
requires prospects and the negotiation should be
accompanied by clear signals on the future of the
agricultural policy, where we will surely hear requests
from some people for the dismantling of common
policies for the sake of budgetary savings. Others
believe that the common policies should not be
dismantled, but rather strengthened in certain areas, such
as food safety and environmental concerns, which
should be incorporated into all our Community policies.
The question of the structural funds brings into focus –
as I said in relation to the Delors packages – the future
political shape of the European Union. A larger
European Union will require greater efforts to increase
economic and social cohesion between the regions.
Mr Aznar, we must construct an area of freedom, justice
and security for the citizens, while fully respecting the
16/01/2002
democratic traditions of our countries and the
fundamental human rights embodied in our Charter.
There is no place for terrorism in this area. Terrorism is
our enemy, but neither should there be room for
repressive laws or measures which bear no relation to
this fight and which contribute to reducing the legal and
judicial guarantees of our citizens. The construction of
this area of freedom must also be an opportunity to
achieve a very high degree of harmonisation of legal
guarantees.
In the field of foreign, security and defence policy, Mr
President-in-Office of the Council, I am going to make a
few very specific comments in order to be brief. The
Spanish Presidency has the responsibility to ensure that
the European Union and the European Parliament, in
cooperation with the Spanish Presidency, take a decisive
step in terms of seeking a just solution in the Middle
East. We believe that we should make it very clear that
the decisions of the United Nations and of international
law should be respected and that Israel’s illegal and
military occupation of the Palestinian State should cease.
We should welcome the intention to continue improving
the Barcelona process, which is currently in stalemate. A
genuine regional integration of the countries on the
Southern shores of the Mediterranean is necessary. The
development of the region cannot be based solely on the
aid and commercial concessions provided by the
European Union, established individually with each of
the Mediterranean countries.
More Europe means playing our proper role in regional
stabilisation and promoting the economic development
of our neighbouring areas. Accordingly, the initiative of
creating the Euro-Mediterranean Development Bank
seems to us to be a positive one. But, while perhaps
complicating the issue, Mr Aznar, the Morocco-Sahara
conflict must be resolved through the calling of the
referendum on self-determination, as agreed in the
United Nations. We believe that the position taken by
the Spanish Government on this problem, in accordance
with Spain’s responsibility towards the Saharan people
and international law, is commendable.
The Spanish Presidency should direct its greatest efforts
towards Central America, particularly at this crucial
time, with the acute crisis in Colombia and the collapse
of the Argentine economy. The European Parliament
unanimously supported the negotiated solution to the
long conflict suffered by Colombia, disassociating itself
from the militarisation of the United States’ proposal,
the Colombia Plan. In these tragic times, the
authoritative voice of the European Union may be
decisive in terms of consolidating talks between the
government and the guerrilla movement. We hope, Mr
Aznar, that you will act accordingly. The Belgian
Presidency has taken significant steps in normalising
relations with Cuba, by beginning to overcome the socalled common position, which is more suited to the
Cold War than to present times.
16/01/2002
Mr Aznar, my political group has strongly supported the
Convention. We would have liked the participation in it
to be more pluralist, but in any event, we are convinced
of its importance. The Spanish Presidency has said that
the issues dealt with by the Convention must be very
open and that its agreements and conclusions should
inform the future decisions of the Intergovernmental
Conference and the Treaty of 2004.
Mr Aznar, you will note that I have described a
landscape of positive and negative positions. You can
count on the cooperation of the humble group I represent
within my political group on all those positive issues.
21
within the Union, which can also expand their goods and
services into new markets.
The Spanish Government is also going to set up the
Convention in March this year to look at the
development of the future of EU policies within the
Union in the context of the next Intergovernmental
Conference in 2004. It is important that the terms of
reference of this Convention are clear and decisive and
that its conclusions in due course do not turn out to be an
unattainable wish list. Amendments to the Treaties have
to be agreed by European Union leaders and any
proposals emanating from this Convention must be
balanced, progressive and achievable.
3-063
Collins (UEN). – Mr President, in setting out the
presidency's programme with regard to key policy
issues, which will be addressed over the next six months
by the European Union, the Spanish Prime Minister has
stated that his priority of priorities during Spain's sixmonths' presidency of the EU will be the global fight
against terrorism. I strongly support this political
objective. The European Union has certainly adopted a
series of measures to combat international terrorism in
recent months as an immediate response to the horrific
terrorist attacks in the United States last September. The
prevention of the use of the European financial system
as a money-laundering route for terrorism must continue
to be a priority for our Union. The fifteen governments
of the Union should also be in a position to freeze the
assets of terrorists and those involved in organised and
international crime.
I very much welcome the Spanish Government's
objective of promoting more police cooperation across
the borders of the Union. This is very important because
intelligence agencies within the Union, together with
Europol, have to work much more closely together in
terms of exchanging and sharing information if the terror
networks operating in Europe are to be broken.
The enlargement negotiations with the applicant
countries will be entering a new phase during the
Spanish Presidency. This presidency is being entrusted
with two very difficult chapters in the negotiations on
enlargement, namely agricultural policy and regional
aid. The Union and the applicant countries must sit
down and hammer out an agreement on the difficult
chapters of the discussions because otherwise
enlargement of the Union cannot take place quickly and
will not be a success.
Countries in Eastern and Central Europe are presently
receiving EU Structural Funds so as to make their
economies more competitive. This is an important policy
objective because it will ensure that on entry these
countries can participate within the Union in a
competitive climate. If the economies of Eastern and
Central Europe are not competitive, then they will not be
able to participate within the internal market in any real,
effective sense. Equally, promoting market economies in
Eastern and Central Europe is good news for businesses
I also welcome the commitment of the Spanish
Government to promote the implementation of EU
regulations and directives, which should expand the use
of new information technologies into all parts of the
Union. This is exceptionally important if the Union is to
remain competitive in the years to come.
Finally, one of the great disappointments of Laeken was
the failure to reach agreement on the siting of up to 12
new important EU agencies. I hope that the Spanish
Government can reach agreement quickly on the
location of these important agencies, in particular the
European Food Authority and the European Maritime
Safety Agency.
3-064
Bonde (EDD). – (DA) Mr President, the smallest group
in Parliament, the Group for a Europe of Democracies
and Diversities, also wishes to welcome the Presidentin-Office of the Council, Mr Aznar, and we should like
to talk a little about the Convention, which will begin on
1 March. It will have a very unevenly balanced
membership of 105 people and a 14-member praesidium
which also looks as if it will be very unevenly balanced.
I would call upon you to ensure that these 14 members
also include representatives of the 49% who voted ‘no’
in the referendum on Maastricht in France and of the
near enough 50% who voted ‘no’ in a couple of
referendums in Denmark. I think it very inappropriate to
put together a praesidium of 14 representatives who
think alike and who will produce a result which, after
three or four years, then ends up being overturned in a
referendum. It would be more practical to secure a
lasting compromise by entering into dialogue straight
away with the different points of view to be found
among the various populations.
The intergroup here in Parliament, which is called ‘SOS
Democracy’ and whose members are in a way the
federalists’ polar opposites, as well as partners
cooperating on issues of transparency and proximity to
the people, has had an excellent meeting with Mr
Verhofstadt and also wishes to request a corresponding
meeting with yourself. During the meeting with Mr
Verhofstadt, the latter made two interesting pledges.
Firstly, he called for all the delegations from all the
countries to include those we call Eurorealists and urged
22
that, for example, at least one of the three representatives
– two from the national parliament and one from the
government – from two of the countries should be
someone with a Eurorealist approach. He pledged that he
would work towards these goals and called upon us to
campaign for them. His second pledge was that he
would support a subsequent referendum.
My question to Mr Aznar is as to whether he too would
call for broad representation and ensure that referendums
subsequently take place. Will he be involved in ensuring
that two different drafts are prepared: a constitution for a
democratic federal state, and a democratic agreement
between independent countries, so that people can see
the difference? Will he be a party to holding a
consultative referendum on two different proposals?
Will be involved in asking people what they think and
have an intergovernmental conference called for the
purpose of preparing a compromise? We must discuss
how the Charter can bind the institutions together
without coming into conflict with the constitutions and
the European Court of Human Rights; how a division of
the Treaty into two parts will not simply make it less
likely that there will be referendums in the event of
Treaty changes; how more than thirty forms of decision
can be reduced to three clear forms of decision; how we
are to formulate a right of veto on crucial issues without
paralysing the whole process; how the national
parliaments are to be associated with the cooperation
process and whether they can assume the Commission’s
initiative, monopoly and competence catalogue; and how
it can be ensured that matters do not just go the same
way as did the rule of law.
In connection with the issue of openness, which Mr
Watson also addressed, I should like finally to ask you,
Mr Aznar, whether you will change Spain’s position and
ensure that Parliament receives the same documentation
as the Council of Ministers. As a friend of Spain, I
particularly welcome you to Parliament, and I hope that
you will surprise us by implementing that openness
which Sweden did not get anywhere with and which
Belgium did not work to bring about. Bienvenido.
16/01/2002
During the coming months, however, the Government of
the Kingdom of Spain will be at your side watching how
faithfully you are following the path marked out by your
predecessor. Let me recall that in 1999 the refusal of the
Spanish Government to move from its nationalist
blindness threw away the greatest chance for peace in
more than a generation. Prime Minister, can you give
this Parliament a glimmer of hope by saying that you
will be committed to working towards a political
settlement of the ongoing conflict in the Basque
country? Time is running out. At the end of this week
you will have 10% less time left in the term of your
European Union presidency. You must hurry up. We are
ready for an immediate breakthrough in the present
deadlock. I will finish by recalling the words of Mr
Watson. He said that it is necessary to recognise that
"political problems often require political solutions".
3-066
President. – As we are running behind time, thanks to
the capacity of some of the group chairmen to express
themselves, I will show a less liberal disposition for the
balance of the morning.
3-067
Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I
hope that you will not start shortening my speaking time.
I believe that the debate we are holding today clearly
demonstrates that we are at a decisive point in terms of
European integration. And I therefore believe that the
ambitiousness of the Spanish Presidency’s objectives –
any one of them could be described as historic – quite
rightly reflects this fact. The truth is that the
decisiveness, or even enthusiasm, with which 300
million European citizens have taken on board the euro,
suggests that we can look to the future with optimism.
The European Parliament, as an expression of popular
will, must now demonstrate its ability to play its role of
providing the debate with impetus, a role which has
particularly been recognised over the last six months of
the Belgian Presidency and as the Spanish Prime
Minister has stressed this morning.
3-065
Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI). – Thank you Mr
President.
(The speaker continued in the Basque language)
Urte berri on danori eta zuri zorionak Lehendakari
Jauna.
Mr President, Happy New Year to everybody and
congratulations to our President. Yesterday Mr
Poettering mentioned the relevance of you being Irish as
the best evidence of political success for the small
countries of our continent. As a Basque, I was very
pleased to hear that, because the Republic of Ireland,
which has only existed for a century, can give a
European stateless nation like ours a very encouraging
example. For that reason too, I wish you good luck and
all the best.
We have provided the Commission and the Council with
inspiration, for example, in order to provide the justice
systems of the Member States with Community
instruments which make the defence of freedoms in the
face of terrorism more effective. Since the beginning of
this legislature, it has been made clear in this House,
more than in any other place, that terrorism is a problem
and a threat to everybody, and not only to the direct
victims.
Therefore, the fact that the Presidency-in-Office of the
Council has said that it is necessary to improve the
codecision procedure in the next reform of the Union
Treaty is an acknowledgement that we should be
grateful for.
We are going to deal with this reform by means of the
method which was used to draw up the Charter of
16/01/2002
Fundamental Rights – which my Group hopes will be
incorporated into the new Treaty - that is to say, by
means of a Convention which will be inaugurated in
March in the headquarters of Parliament, as has been
revealed to us this morning.
We trust that that positive attitude from the Council will
be maintained throughout the work of the Convention,
so that we can respond to two needs: firstly, to bring the
Community institutions closer to the citizens by making
them more democratic, more efficient and more
transparent; and secondly, by undertaking a profound
reform of an institutional framework designed for the six
founding States, adapting it to a reality in which there
are 25 or more Member States, which we hope to see in
2004.
Ladies and gentlemen, the negotiations for the
enlargement of the European Union – some of the most
important chapters of which, as has been said, will be
dealt with in the coming months – should not in any way
become polluted by domestic debates. On the contrary,
in the current Member States, government and
opposition
should
leave
aside
party-political
confrontation in the face of this great Union objective.
Mr Barón, we must bear in mind that the success of a
Presidency is not measured in national terms, or much
less party-political terms. This morning you recognised
that you need to take a few classes. I fear that you do not
only need computing classes. You spoke like a Spanish
Socialist. I trust that you will show the same loyalty that
the European Popular Party showed to the two previous
Presidencies.
(Protests from the PSE Group)
Mr President, we must use these six months to make the
European Union stronger in the world, participating in
international debates by means of the common position.
To this end, it is not just necessary to move ahead with
the institutional reforms of the CFSP in order to make it
more efficient and visible inside and outside our borders,
but we must also improve the instruments which the
European Union already has, such as the Community
external service.
There is no doubt that numerous challenges await us
over the next six months, which will demand effort and
cooperation from all of us: citizens, European
institutions, governments and political parties. We fully
trust that this Presidency will represent a step towards a
larger and more united Europe, which is more open to
the world and closer to the citizens.
(Applause)
3-068
Díez González (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, holding a
Presidency is always an opportunity for a country to
demonstrate its commitment to a common cause which
is no less than moving European integration forward in a
way that benefits the citizens. Mr Aznar, I know that you
23
have a difficult job, that the international context, in
political and economic terms, is complicated and
furthermore, as has been said, that the Belgian
Presidency has set a very high standard. But have no
doubt, Mr President, that the Spanish Socialists will
cooperate unreservedly in making the Presidency a
success for Spain and for Europe. There will never ever
be disloyalty from our side. Others may show some. We
hope that you do it well, because we want this
Presidency to give Spain prestige within Europe.
Therefore, Mr President, your personal effort and that of
the members of your government will have to rise to the
occasion.
Mr President, in your communication you have listed
Europe’s current priorities. Enlargement, the Lisbon
process, the international coalition for freedoms and
against terrorism, the single area of security and justice,
the external policy, relations with the Mediterranean
countries, the role of Europe in Latin America: that is
your agenda, Mr President. But we Socialists would
have liked to hear you make some specific commitment,
an ambitious initiative relating to some of these issues.
For example, we would have liked it if, when talking
about the Lisbon process, you had stressed the social
aspects. Because the Lisbon process agreed a strategic
objective which, together with the construction of a
more prosperous and competitive economic area,
included the objectives of full employment and greater
cohesion.
Please commit yourself, Mr President, to making all the
coordination methods relating to these social agenda
strategies increasingly Community methods. Associate
the European Parliament, the unions and employers with
this process. In our view, this would mean more Europe.
I will give another example: the Mediterranean and
Latin America are European priorities, but a good
Spanish Presidency, given its special closeness and
relations with these two regions, should be able to put
the emphasis on them. Nevertheless, we do not notice in
your programme concrete initiatives to revitalise
dialogue and cooperation beyond the creation of the
Euro-Mediterranean Development Bank, which by the
way was foreseen in 1995 in Barcelona and later in
Laeken. You do not tell us how or when you are going to
conclude the negotiations with Mercosur and with Chile.
We note the lack of concrete commitments.
Mr President, we are glad that you have chosen the
motto ‘More Europe’, and not because it is a classic of
the Socialist family. I will tell you now that we will not
judge you by the number of meetings you hold in six
months, but we will judge you on the results. So you
must move on from words to actions, Mr President.
What do you mean by more Europe? I imagine that it
will not be, as Minister Piqué said, that Europe should
speak with a single voice in 2050, because, as country
folk would say, ‘that is a journey that requires no
saddlebags’. I am truly impressed by the ambition of the
Minister for External Affairs. More Europe means more
security, but also more freedom. More Europe means
more employment but also less inequality. More Europe
24
means more democracy and more participation. More
Europe also means a Europe that is more active in the
defence of human rights. More Europe, in summary, also
means less nationalism, of either the old type or the new
type.
Mr President, if you act in this way, we will be the first
to applaud you. We want you to be successful and we
want to celebrate your success together.
3-069
Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR). – (ES) Mr President, Mr
President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the
Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like
to stress the support of the Liberal Group and of my
party, Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya, in
order to ensure that this Presidency ends with a positive
assessment, with distinction, which will include it in the
category of the two previous Spanish Presidencies.
Of the issues mentioned as priorities for the present
Presidency, I would like to stress the following three.
That the meeting of the Barcelona European Council, in
March, provides concrete commitments and results
which can be confirmed, in order to ensure the effective
implementation of the structural reforms and
liberalisation processes necessary for complying with
the objectives set in the process initiated at the Lisbon
Council.
That the Euro-Mediterranean Council serves to promote
a new stage in the process begun, also under a Spanish
Presidency, in Barcelona in 1995, in order to ensure
greater and better cooperation between the European
Union and the third countries of the Mediterranean. We
are in favour of the creation of a financial institution
which allows the full and effective application of the
funds agreed for the Mediterranean programmes. We
must intensify the Union’s external policy, in which
much of its future peace and stability is at stake.
In your key role as a member of the Praesidium of the
Convention, we ask that you ensure the incorporation
and participation of the constitutional regions in the
institutions of the European Union in the constituent text
to be agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference of
2004. As the chairman of the Liberal Group stressed in
his speech, the European Union cannot be considered
complete unless it includes the full participation and
integration of the Europe of the Regions. It is an issue to
which, under the Spanish Presidency, which will begin
with the Convention, we attach the greatest importance,
as has been stressed.
3-070
Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr
President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of
the Council, Spain will endow the Presidency of the
European Union with a proposed set of priorities which
shows ambition and will. European integration today
means strengthening freedoms, isolating intolerance and
making that integration compatible with the necessary
fight against terrorism.
16/01/2002
The priority given by Spain to enlargement is not
accompanied by the necessary commitments to
guarantee the legitimate objectives of the Objective 1
territories.
Vital to me, as a supporter of Andalusian autonomy, in
order to safeguard the future, are the reform of the
common agricultural policy, the debate on rural
development, codecision in agriculture and food safety,
in order to prevent extremely costly crises and alarm
amongst consumers. The presence of the autonomous
communities in the Council when issues relating to our
interests and competences are dealt with will always be
positive and enriching.
Reflect the reality of Spain in Europe. Do not try to hide
it, Mr Aznar. The autonomous communities are also
States. A plural Spain in a plural Europe, creating more
Union. Take that political and social reality further.
Mr Aznar, you have not explicitly mentioned Morocco
in your speech. Include it in your Presidency.
Mr Aznar, please do not let the neutrality of the
Presidency paralyse our legitimate Europeanist objective
of cohesion. Let us be firm, but let us also talk.
3-071
Muscardini (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, it is a shame
that, yet again, some of the left-wing Members have
adopted a presumptuous, party-political position of
opposition to Italy, to a people, that is, who elected their
government freely and democratically, with regard to the
development of the future and present European Union.
Moreover, such trifling issues do not deserve
Parliament’s attention.
Mr Aznar, the Spanish Presidency’s programme is full
of issues to be addressed and objectives, and underlying
all the initiatives we can see the commitment to restoring
politics to its central place in the debate. Time
constraints prevent us from mentioning more than just a
few points. Firstly, the common economic policy that
you have tackled, which the President-designate of the
Commission has pinpointed as key for the future and
which confirms the view we expressed in voting for the
euro in Brussels: there can be no monetary policy
without a strong common economic policy. Secondly,
the Mediterranean policy, whose progress must be
speeded up because, although cooperation between the
intelligence services of the European countries is
extremely important to combat terrorism – as we have
stressed in the debate on that subject – it is equally true
that we need to combat poverty, to restore peace to the
Middle East, to re-centre the European Union politically:
therefore, we need an incisive Mediterranean policy to
be a key part of the forthcoming Barcelona Summit.
Thirdly, implementing the concept of More Europe, or
More Europe of the Citizens practically, which means
we need institutions which are less bureaucratic and
more democratic, and we need greater respect for
traditions, for the identities of the individual countries,
16/01/2002
25
for a Europe which is not just a standardisation machine
but generates growth for each country, as the President
of Parliament, Mr Cox, said yesterday.
pretext of globalisation, of a real wall between the rich
world and poor world, which has no future and is
therefore in the most dire straits.
Then we must not forget the Argentinian disaster: the
one hundred and twentieth crisis in Argentina since
1975. We therefore also need to address the issue of the
speculation bubble, the excessive disparity between the
actual economy and – indeed – the official economy; we
must tackle the Argentinian problem by providing aid
immediately, not least because of the ties of friendship
and tradition our countries have with Argentina.
From this point of view, it is fortunately encouraging
that the nations are showing signs of rebelling,
particularly the nations in Europe. Italy and Germany are
giving us some positive signs, Denmark and Ireland
have already done so, and I am sure that France will too
in the days to come. Mr Aznar, this could be your main
worry in the coming six months. And if you have made a
conscious choice to deny what is really happening at
national level, I cannot, we cannot, wish you good luck.
3-072
Coûteaux (EDD). – (FR) Mr President, it is a matter of
some regret that Spain, a great country that France and
the French people hold very dear, has chosen the theme
of ‘More Europe’. This theme does not break any new
ground, as it has, after all, been compulsory for almost
fifty years, and it cannot fail to cause us concern because
‘More Europe’ equates to nothing more than the
constantly increasing destruction of what makes up the
substance of Europe, namely the nations.
To some extent, however, Spain will not break any new
ground. You are not breaking new ground, in particular,
in the area that you have made your priority as a head of
government, Mr Aznar; in other words, the fight against
terrorism. There is something risible about combating
terrorism when you appear to be doing everything
possible to encourage its growth, both at a superficial
and deeper level, in Europe and everywhere else in the
world. An obvious example of its superficial growth is
the ridiculous and criminal obsession with bringing
down borders, which of course does not fail to make
police controls increasingly difficult and which, above
all, encourages internationalism which has always been
the greatest weapon of all forms of terrorism since time
immemorial.
At a deeper level, bringing down borders destroys
people’s sense of national belonging, which for centuries
has given them a reference point in space and time, and,
in other words, a place in history. They thus rediscover
their ethnic origins and begin to fight against what
remains of the nation State, a fight that we also
encourage on occasion. Thus, what is happening in
Spain is what happens everywhere else. In our view, we
can only combat Basque terrorism by asserting a broad
Spanish policy on the international stage, a policy
which, fortunately, Spain also has the resources to
conduct in Europe, in the Mediterranean and in Latin
America. However, Europe does not allow us to be selfassertive.
At a deeper level still, terrorism is both favoured and
encouraged by the deep disorder into which the world is
plunging under the battering that the nations are
suffering as a result of the sacrosanct dogma of
capitalism that is trade liberalisation. This does not only
lead to the destruction of the national sense of
belonging, which is also one of the sources of Islamic
terrorism, but also to the building, on the misleading
3-073
Bonino (NI). – (IT) Mr President-in-Office,
congratulations and the best of luck for your term of
office. The programme you have presented for your
Presidency is extremely dense. I would like, if I may, to
put forward a few suggestions which would make it a
great, ambitious programme as well.
I belong to a political family which, unlike many others,
has always believed that the only things of any
importance are ideas and a vision for the future. Well
then, under your Presidency, an old idea we extremists
have had for many years regarding law and international
law can come to fruition. During your Presidency, you
can complete the establishment, for the sake of
humanity, of the permanent international court which
will bring to justice those accused of war crimes,
genocide and crimes against humanity. It will be an
historic moment, a fundamental change, which, together
with the Treaties, will introduce an initial element of
international jurisdiction.
Sixty ratifications are needed and over 50 have been
obtained. Many of our friendly neighbours are far
advanced in the process. It is possible, if you want it,
and we will all help you – Parliament is going to discuss
the issue in February – for the Spanish Presidency to
obtain the necessary 60 ratifications in the name and on
behalf of 200 million European citizens. I hope that you
will embrace this as a historic opportunity for change.
Think how different it would be, even where the fight
against terrorism is concerned if – as in the case with
Slobodan Milosevic, who is a mere war criminal
awaiting trial – today, we had the chance to send the
Osama Bin Ladens or the Mullah Omars of this world
for trial before a permanent international court. Then our
American friends would not find themselves having to
invent military courts and the like. Well then, we and
you yourself have the chance to achieve this, and we are
certainly determined to do so.
Of course, Mr Aznar, we fully support the fight against
terrorism, but what concerns me is the political response,
for clearly, military and judicial responses are not
sufficient. We continue to follow and implement the
principle that the enemy of my enemy is automatically
my friend. We are in danger of heedlessly accepting the
most unlikely regimes as allies because we need them.
26
Some of these regimes, Mr President, are close by; they
may even lie on the southern shore of the Mediterranean.
There is another point I would like to make. You see, I
feel that we are sitting next to a minefield and that a new
vision of our relations with the Mediterranean must be
the priority for our present and certainly for our
immediate future.
16/01/2002
objective, which the Heads of State and Government
drew up at the Rio de Janeiro Summit, of creating a
strategic bi-regional partnership. Therefore, as the
Presidency-in-Office has stated, we hope that the Madrid
Summit will be able to send a clear and well-defined
message of the Europe’s new commitment to Latin
America.
These are just a few suggestions, Mr President, but they
would help us to be forward-looking in a practical way,
which is precisely what our citizens want us to be.
I am absolutely convinced that the storey which this
Presidency has to add to this Community building will
be a match for the ambitious priorities they have
presented to us this morning.
3-074
3-075
Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr
President, firstly I would like to wish the Spanish
Presidency luck for the ambitious programme they have
presented here this morning. The speeches by certain
Members have reminded me of what Marx said, not Karl
but Groucho, about certain literary critics who were so
busy writing criticism that they never had five minutes
to sit down and read a novel.
van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) Mr Aznar, twenty years
ago, one European market with one currency, the euro,
was a dream. Today, it is a reality. The Group of the
Party of European Socialists would like to see the same
ambitions inform European security and defence policy,
and all the events of 11 September have only
strengthened this wish. It is a prerequisite for peace and
progress. This is why we support the Spanish Presidency
if it wishes to inject this ESDP with more dynamism,
greater capacity and, in general, more resources to
become more effective. In this respect, it is essential for
the message of multilateralism to be broadcast. The US’s
withdrawal from the ABM Treaty is in conflict with this.
We do not want to relapse into a fresh arms race. We
would ask the Spanish Presidency to send this European
message to our ally, the United States, in particular. We
can drive this message home and make this appeal to the
US with all the more force now that we, as Europe – in
the coalition – are prepared vigorously to continue the
fight against terrorism, both inside and outside Europe.
Mr President, I would like to say that the Spanish
Presidency has a series of objectives which are being
presented straight away, both in terms of the internal
dimension of the project and of its external dimension. It
is clearly a question of uniting wills, forging consensus
and identifying the right direction so that the European
Union can make progress. This will require two things.
It requires a method, and at Laeken the Convention
method was chosen, which is an innovative method:
Europe cannot be built on the basis of concentric circles.
And it requires ambition.
I do not agree with what my good friend Mr Watson
said, though I congratulate him on his appointment as
chairman of the Liberal Group, because I believe that
Spain is very well placed to contribute to overcoming
one of the historic challenges of our times, which is how
to reconcile unity with diversity prudently and
judiciously. How to provide the European Union project
with a well-tuned orchestra, well-tempered, as Mozart
said, which is guided by democratic impulses and not by
a blast of a bugle like a battalion.
Mr President, when freedom was savagely attacked by
the barbarity of 11 September, it immediately became
clear that notions of security, defence, cooperation,
external policy and development aid are interrelated and
must be based on a common awareness that the threats
and dangers of terrorism affect all of us alike and that we
must therefore respond to them as one.
Mr President, I would like to say a couple of things
about Latin America. This Parliament thinks that Latin
America does not need gifts, but rather opportunities.
But we also believe that we sometimes have to move on
from beatitudes to accounting books and we have,
therefore, significantly increased the quantities proposed
by the Commission for cooperation with these regions in
2002 and we have presented an ambitious catalogue of
measures aimed at giving content to that strategic
I have a second, serious question for the Spanish
Presidency. Are you also prepared to fight for a
worldwide coalition against poverty? After all, poverty
largely forms the breeding ground for fundamentalist
hatred, of whatever origin. It must be a coalition against
poverty in Asia, in Africa and also in the EuroMediterranean process, for security on our planet is not
there for the chosen few, but is only stable if it is shared
by all, under an international rule of law.
Does the Spanish Presidency not agree that it would be
better to make financial investments in this instead of
putting all our money unilaterally into new, Star Warslike investments?
Against this backdrop, would you make every effort to
help Messrs Solana and Patten to have a fully
operational capacity for the Petersberg tasks by 2003?
In the Middle East, we hear Iran’s ex-Prime Minister,
Mr Rafsanjani, threaten to destroy Israel by means of an
atom bomb. His saying that is wholly unacceptable. But
the policy of Mr Sharon, who has isolated Mr Arafat and
has turned innocent Palestinian citizens into victims, has
not contributed to security in Israel and Palestine in any
way. Is the Spanish Presidency, in tandem with the
United States and Russia, prepared to launch a new
16/01/2002
peace initiative in the Middle East as a whole? We
would be very grateful if it did.
3-076
Sánchez García (ELDR). – (ES) Mr President, Mr
Aznar, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, as a Member
from the Canary Islands, one of the Community’s
outermost regions, and a member of the European
Liberal and Democratic Reform Group, I warmly
welcome the Presidency-in-Office of the Council.
Do not forget, Mr Aznar, to deal with the outstanding
issues facing us in this six-month period to come, during
which enlargement and the euro are presenting the
European Community with a very special kind of
landscape, in which the whole world is more or less
affected for various reasons which oblige us to make
constant, permanent and joint efforts to achieve peace
and prosperity.
I must remind you that, in our European sphere, in all
the pillars of the Community edifice, we have
maintenance problems. Therefore, Community policies
must include something which you have pointed out:
‘more Europe’. And this is true, especially when it
comes to reviewing the CAP, the Structural Funds, the
consolidation of the situation of the outermost regions
and creating a genuine European immigration strategy. It
is also true when it comes to institutional reforms,
defining the role and the participation of the regions in
the construction of the Europe of the Twenty-first
Century and an appropriate environmental policy,
without forgetting the fields of social policy, that is,
employment and the SMEs.
Neither must you forget, in your dual capacity as
President-in-Office of the Council and Spanish Prime
Minister, to export more Europe to the world. To this
end, we must review the Union’s external relations –
such as the Council’s common position on Cuba and the
future of the Sahara, by means of a self-determination
referendum – without forgetting the dialogue with our
Mediterranean neighbours – from Morocco to the
Middle East – or with more distant regions, such as
Latin America, with the problem of Argentina, or the
United States and China.
Of course you can count on our support, as always, in
the joint European political fight against terrorism.
I wish you luck in this special mandate and I trust that
we will all be able to celebrate together following your
success in the June exams, because what is good for
Europe is good for everybody, especially the outermost
regions.
3-077
Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President,
Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office
of the Council, your priorities for the Presidency do not
deal with, or at least place very much in second place,
certain policies which, since they are fundamental to the
Union and also for Spain and my nation, must be dealt
with in 2002: the CAP, the common fisheries policy and
27
the future of the Structural Funds. On the contrary, you
intend to use your Presidency to indulge your
authoritarian obsession against European diversity,
denying a presence in the Council to nationalities and
regions of the Spanish States, employing a notion of
sovereignty which is now anti-historical and
anachronistic in the Union. If your approach were
correct, Mr Aznar, we would have to concluded that you
are appearing here today as a President of a foreign
institution.
We do not think like that. I represent my nation and I am
also a citizen of the Spanish State and of the Union, and
there is no contradiction here. You are mixed up in an
authoritarian manner in something which is resolved in
the Treaties and in practice, while ignoring the fact that
in the future, if we do not deal with the problem of
sovereignty, not to mention separatism, we will ask
ourselves not only why Slovakia can chair a Fisheries
Council while Galicia, Andalusia or the Canaries cannot
attend it, but also why the historic national status of the
Malta or Luxembourg is rightly recognised, while that of
Galicia, the Basque country, Catalonia, Scotland, Wales
or Flanders is not.
3-078
Raschhofer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and
gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for
accession are entering their most difficult stage yet
under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on
agriculture and regional development therefore demand
the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A
discriminating approach is called for, especially as
regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be
reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive
levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural
policy in the accession countries rather than carrying
over the system of direct payments. Particular
negotiating skill will be required in view of the
background of difficulties that are manifesting
themselves and the mutually opposing interests with
regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of
crucial importance that the negotiations should make
capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by
which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda
2000.
3-079
Evans, Jonathan (PPE-DE). – Prime Minister Aznar's
performance this morning suggests that his presidency
promises to be focused and business-like and committed
to addressing the big issues. The presidency has many
tasks on the international front; carrying forward the
global war on terrorism is the most difficult and the most
important.
The presidency has promised to resolutely promote
solidarity with the United States at this time of crisis,
and it is right to do so, but other foreign problems will
crowd in. In Zimbabwe we have a growing tragedy
which requires urgent EU action: smart sanctions need
to be introduced immediately and a clear message sent
about the dangerous consequences of the criminal path
on which Mr Mugabe is currently engaged.
28
The presidency faces similar challenges on the economic
front. If Europe is serious about making itself the most
competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in
the world by 2010, then Barcelona promises to be a
moment of truth. We simply cannot afford continued
failure. Europe has to get it right. Since Stockholm
things have in fact moved backwards. The liberalising
agenda has become bogged down by new social and
environmental targets. Since then we have seen at least
three new EU directives which directly reduce labour
market flexibility, with more in the pipeline, as well as
new national laws, as in France, that tie the hands of
business. This is a job-destroying agenda.
In the target sectors for greater competition, the picture
is frankly unacceptable. In financial services – telecoms
for instance – liberalisation is proceeding too slowly.
The freeing up of energy markets and postal services is
way behind schedule. If Europe really wants to emerge
as the global economic leader by the end of this decade,
it must show real commitment. We need to make it
easier to start and run a business and to keep and invest
profits. That means a lot of vested interests will need to
be confronted. We look to Prime Minister Aznar to lead
the way.
3-080
Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-inOffice of the Council, Mr President of the Commission,
Parliament is engaged in strenuous discussions with the
Commission concerning new ways of governing ‘European governance’. As parliamentarians we have
raised objections to several proposals in the interests of
effective and lively parliamentary government, but we
have also found agreement with the Commission on a
number of things. Something we would both like, Mr
President-in-Office, but which the Council has to date
refused, is an interinstitutional working party in which
we — Parliament, Commission and Council together —
could discuss the issues surrounding the new way of
governing. I would ask you, Mr President-in-Office, to
take care that the Council agrees to this way of
proceeding together.
Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the
Commission, we are of the opinion that we should in any
case be treated equally with the Council, including on
the issue of secondary legislation. It is our opinion that
we too should have a call back position should the
secondary legislation not work well. We take the view,
moreover, that framework directives should have a sort
of ‘sunset clause’, a time limit.
We agree with the Commission in any case that
lawmaking and the decision-making process in the
European Union should again and again have their
effectiveness monitored. This also applies to the area of
liberalisation, which we sometimes doubt is being
carried out with a careful eye and social awareness.
Questions to be considered in this area include, for
example, whether liberalisation always leads to lower
prices in the long term, whether it always results in
16/01/2002
competition or sometimes also to monopolies and
oligopolies, the only difference being that this time they
are across Europe.
What are the chances under liberalisation for the small
and medium-sized enterprises about which we are all
concerned, especially in the smaller sectors? How about
the issue of concentration, especially in the media? Italy
has already been mentioned today. We often turn a blind
eye to this. What is the net effect on employment and
wages?
I mention these things not because either I or my group
are opposed to liberalisation. We mention these things
because we want to carry out liberalisation in the
interests of our citizens, with a careful eye and social
awareness.
It may be for this reason, Mr President of the
Commission and Mr President-in-Office, that some
governments are sceptical about liberalisation and slow
to implement it, because they feel that it does not always
exactly lead to the good objective that is in mind, and
because they feel that their own people do not always
perceive the advantages to be found in the detail of this
liberalisation strategy.
So I beg to ask you to consider, within the framework of
the Barcelona and Lisbon processes, how liberalisation,
which you in your programme want to push and press
ahead with, can come about in our people's interest,
taking the social dimensions into account as well. The
continuation of an arbitrary liberalisation strategy cannot
be what it is all about.
Whilst Mr Berlusconi thinks we should strengthen
Europe by being more American than the Americans, I
do believe we should take our own European road to
liberalisation.
3-081
Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr Presidentin-Office of the Council, you have just referred to ‘more
Europe’ and the fight against terrorism as two of your
great objectives, and I share them and wish you every
success.
Europe cannot be built solely by the governments of the
Member States, excluding the other public institutions. I
therefore suggest we follow the examples of Germany
and the previous Belgian Presidency, in which we have
seen the participation of representatives of all their
regions and communities.
The Spanish Government, on the other hand, repeatedly
blocks any participation by the autonomous
communities in the European bodies, even when the
latter are going to decide on the exclusive competences
of those regions, as usually happens in relation to Ecofin
and financial and fiscal matters, on which the
autonomous communities of the Basque Country and
Navarre have full sovereignty.
16/01/2002
In order to eradicate violence, I would cite the example
of the British and Irish Governments, which sponsored
the Good Friday agreements and the peace process in
Ulster, and I would ask you and the Popular Party not to
continue to insist on maintaining your alliance with
Herri Batasuna – protectors of ETA – with the sole
objective of imposing a state of political siege on the
Basque Government, and instead to promote democratic
dialogue with the majority of the Basque people, aimed
at resolving the historic political conflict, who wish to
live in peace, and to respect their right to decide their
future freely.
(Applause)
29
which must be rejected both within the European Union
and outside it.
Mr President-in-Office, I have observed over the last
few months how you, astutely preparing for your
presidency, have not, on foreign policy issues, fallen
victim to the peril of bilateralism, which has been seen
to some degree in Berlin, London and Paris. I believe
this results from the recognition that we can achieve the
objectives of combating international and national
terrorism and securing peace only by a joint effort and
not on the basis of everyone for himself, and that it is for
this reason that we must bring about a common foreign
and security policy. I am thankful that you evidently are
able to go down this road.
3-082
Borghezio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, “More Europe” is
a watchword we support, but it must be accompanied by
‘More freedom’ and ‘More identity’. As strong
supporters of the Europe of the peoples we see as
brothers – from the Basques to the Corsicans, the
Flemish to the Padanians – and therefore also strong
supporters of freedoms and autonomies, we identify with
the project of European integration, seeing it, not least,
as a response to the serious dangers of globalisation.
This motto ‘More Europe’ must embrace more specific
commitments and actions to protect the freedoms and
identities of the Europeans. To achieve ‘More Europe’,
we first need undertakings to protect the diversities and
specific characteristics – linguistic, regional, national
and cultural – for which our peoples are fighting,
particularly the people of the Po Valley. This means
taking the opposite direction to that advocated by the
standardisation directives produced by the technocratic
oligarchy, which has not been legitimised by any form
of election, and is currently guiding and directing all the
European Union’s politics.
Similarly, how could one fail to see the link between the
fight against terrorism – which we support – and the
dangers represented by illegal immigration, which is the
breeding ground for terrorism? There is a Council of
Europe resolution which calls for immigration to be
limited so as to avoid increasing or exacerbating
unemployment within the States. Why is it not invoked?
3-083
Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-inOffice of the Council, Mr President of the Commission,
from the point of view of foreign policy, the Spanish
Presidency comes at a time when there is war between
two atomic powers to be prevented, peace to be
established in the Middle East, and the Barcelona
process to be brought to a successful conclusion,
because, if we are not successful in these areas, they
may have a merciless effect on our immediate interests.
I believe, Mr President, that we can make progress on
the focal points that you have mapped out.
Internationally, and nationally too, all this is tied in with
the fight against terrorism, and I would like to say, in
response to a speech by one of the previous speakers,
that there can be no political justification for terror,
There are yet two more reasons why your presidency
comes at a decisive moment. You will, when the
Convention begins, be able to emphasise certain features
of what the internal configuration of the European Union
will be like in the future. We therefore ask you for the
support that will give the Convention the working
facilities it needs in order to be able to meet these
requirements. Your presidency will, though, also see the
preparatory decisions on enlargement of the European
Union taken, that is to say, on the outward configuration
of the European Union in the future. We hope for very
close cooperation with you on these issues over the next
six months.
(Applause)
3-084
Terrón i Cusí (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, in Laeken,
two decisions were taken which are very important to
the creation of a European judicial area in the fight
against terrorism: a common definition and sanctions in
relation to terrorism and the European arrest warrant.
This Parliament had insisted on these two measures in
the Watson report – and I would like to congratulate him
on his election and also on his words – and I believe we
have done a positive job with the Council and the
Commission in implementing it.
In Laeken, an assessment was also made of the
implementation of the Tampere agenda. I will return to
that in a moment. But I would also like to say that on 27
December, COREPER adopted a series of decisions
relating to the fight against terrorism. The decision
allowing for a list of people and organisations active in
the European Union is significant. Article 4 of the
common position stating the need for the police and
judicial cooperation laid down in the Treaty and in the
international agreements in this field will be applied to
them. We are delighted with this decision, which is of
unquestionable symbolic value. We hope that the
measures for combating the funding of terrorism in
Europe can also be applied soon.
And I also hope, Mr President, that the Council will
maintain the excellent cooperation that it has enjoyed
with this Parliament, with the exception of recent times.
30
Having adopted the most important instruments for
fighting terrorism, we must now see that they are
applied. You can and must convince the States which
have the most doubts.
I would also like to point out a cause for concern in
relation to the question of immigration. Your agenda
mentions immigration for humanitarian reasons and the
fight against illegal immigration. You miss out an
important package: that of rights and duties and that of
the organisation of the legal entry of persons. And there
are already documents in the Commission in this regard.
Please promote the whole agenda, so that we do not have
to end up regretting unfulfilled decisions, as happened in
Laeken with certain decisions taken in Tampere.
3-085
Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Senyor President
Aznar, the theme you have given your presidency is
‘Más Europa’ [More Europe]. ‘Más Europa’ also
implies that Catalan, a language spoken by almost 10
million Europeans, can be established in this House.
This is enshrined in the Charter on Fundamental Rights
and is part of our cultural diversity. ‘Más Europa’ also
means that our Ministers can be directly involved in the
European decisions that concern them, as defined in the
Treaty of Maastricht. ‘Más Europa’ also implies that the
State must not commit the ecological crime of the
national hydrological plan, as stipulated in the European
habitat and water directives. ‘Más Europa’ also means
enabling all nations, if they wish, to become full
members of the Union; this is contained in several
European Parliament resolutions acknowledging the
right to self-determination.
President Aznar, my party, Esquerra Republicana de
Catalunya, the Republican Left of Catalonia, and I know
that we cannot count on you to make all these
democratic advances. Mr President, when I look at the
stars on our flag, I see old and young nations rising up in
the four corners of Europe. They all wish to take their
place, their rightful place in this common Chamber.
Allow me to finish in Catalan…
... Visca Catalunya lliure! [Long live a free Catalonia!]
Visca Europa unida! [Long live a united Europe!]
3-086
Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, on
seeing the stars on the European flag, I believe that some
people have mistaken our forum and have come here to
make narrow-minded statements. I am not going to get
involved in that debate because this is a place for talking
about Europe. And we have come here to discuss a
programme that combines ambition with vision.
I am therefore very pleased, Mr President, that we are
dealing here with a six-month programme during which,
as most Members have pointed out, much is going to be
done and many initiatives are going to be taken.
It is true that the tradition of Parliament is to demand
that the Presidency-in-Office get things done. But I also
16/01/2002
believe that, in compensation for the many things that
have been demanded today, this Parliament must make a
commitment to doing something which seems to me
extraordinarily important: the Barcelona process is going
to be a key element of the Presidency. The Barcelona
process is necessary in order to complete the process
started in Lisbon and you have said, Mr President, that
there is no better means of achieving social integration
than creating employment. We must send a clear signal,
at a time when the European economy is delicate, that
the European Union is prepared to make this effort and,
therefore, this Parliament and this political group
commit ourselves to approving, next week in the
Committee on Constitutional Affairs, the report by Mr
von Wogau so that we may implement the measures
contained in the Lamfalussy report, which I believe will
send a clear message to the markets that we are willing
to reach an agreement – and I am glad that you are here,
Mr Prodi, since the Commission has much to say on this
issue – a fair agreement, which respects the balance of
the institutions, to liberalise that market. From this point
of view, the European Parliament will add to the good
initiatives of a Presidency which has ambition and
vision.
Mr President, I believe I am the only speaker who has
not used up his speaking time.
(Applause)
3-087
McNally (PSE). – Mr President, Prime Minister, thank
you for your presentation of the Spanish Presidency's
priorities. I will comment on just one of them, namely
your determination to complete the single market in the
gas and electricity sectors. We have misgivings about
your approach. You want the EU to be guided by five
major principles: openness, liberalisation, competition,
transparency
and
interconnection.
These
are
fundamental to an open market. Energy, however, is not
like other goods or services. It has other facets: basic
social need and environmental impact. A rushed and illconsidered liberalisation would be highly dangerous.
Your own country, like California, has recently suffered
major power cuts following liberalisation.
Liberalisation leads to a dash for gas, forcing us to
import gas from some very fragile regimes. We need to
ensure that indigenous energy sources can play a major
role in energy supply. Renewable energies in particular
need legal protection and promotion. The greatest
contribution to security of supply is intelligent use of
energy, one of the regulatory requirements of wise
liberalisation. Please ensure that energy efficiency
becomes a key national indicator at Barcelona. Uneven
opening of the market between countries brings huge
resentment. We strongly support your efforts to put
pressure on certain governments, which keep their
markets closed while they take advantage of open
markets elsewhere. I look forward to your assurance that
liberalisation of energy will take place in a very strictly
regulated framework which protects the environment
and takes heed of social consequences, some of which
16/01/2002
are very serious. Unlike Mr Evans, we think that is
important.
3-088
President. – I should like to inform the House that
because we are running behind schedule I expect to be in
a position to call on the President-in-Office of the
Council to respond to the debate at around 12.45 p.m. or
12.50 p.m. This means that in all probability the vote
will not be taken until 1 p.m. This information will be
placed on the screens in Parliament so that colleagues
who wish to attend the vote can do so. But I would like
to hear the Prime Minister's response in calm
parliamentary conditions, if that is possible.
3-089
Tajani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, the Spanish
Presidency, which has our full support, will play a
crucial role in the integration of a Europe which is not
just the Europe of the single currency but the Europe of
the common foreign and security policy as well. The
Union’s joint action will be judged initially on the
success of the fight against terrorism, which is not an
internal Spanish affair but a fundamental issue in which
we must all be involved, just as we are with regard to the
European presence in Afghanistan. We too will support
any undertaking in the Middle East because it is only by
resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis that we will be
able to deliver the final blow to the terrorist
organisations. Indeed, it is a political effort, above all, as
well as military endeavours that can bring Europe
success against the instigators of the attack of 11
September.
The return to the rule of law in the world will contribute
to economic growth and thus help to improve the
conditions of the European citizens, whom we also have
to provide with a system of social and other protection
which abolishes longstanding privileges. The
Convention will also have to decide upon the way to
follow to develop the new Charter, and we hope that the
Intergovernmental Conference will be able to take place
during the second half of 2003 to avoid Europe’s future
being debated right in the middle of the electoral
campaign.
However, I cannot close without responding to a number
of statements made in this House. The strong
Europeanism of Italy and of its democratically elected
government is indisputable. We are always ready to
request or provide clarification and would stress that it is
absolutely unthinkable that Italy should have anything
but an independent, leading role in the development of
European unity. Rather, let the Socialists explain the
agreement signed in Berlin with the GDR, with the
former supporters of the Berlin wall: an agreement
which goes against the great hopes of freedom not just
of the German people but of all Europeans.
3-090
Hughes (PSE). – Mr President, I speak for the Socialists
from the point of view of Parliament's Committee on
Employment and Social Affairs. The Barcelona Summit
will be a major milestone during the Spanish Presidency
31
and it is essential that we reply to the downward global
economic trend by further deepening and strengthening
the process laid down at Lisbon and further developed at
Stockholm and Göteborg.
The Lisbon policy mix of mutually supportive economic
reform, full employment, social cohesion and
sustainable development needs to be reinforced through
concrete measures that increase the potential for growth
and job creation. It would be a grave mistake to
concentrate – as some have done in the debate today –
on only one aspect of the Lisbon process, that of
structural reform. At this time, we need to further
develop the coherence of the Lisbon process and
reinforce it.
In concrete terms, we want a number of priorities
developed at Barcelona, some of which are reflected in
the Commission's synthesis report adopted this week.
The following are purely illustrative in the limited time
available. We want a strengthening of resolve to achieve
the goal of a 70% employment rate by 2010, recognising
the good progress we have seen and increasing the
participation of unemployed people in active labour
measures to at least 20% in nearly all Member States;
we want to go further and set a new target of 44%, the
level in the three best-performing Member States, to be
achieved within a five-year timeframe. Within this
timeframe we need, among other things, further action
for women and older workers able and willing to stay in
the labour market; action to improve the availability of
affordable and good-quality child care; goals for
reductions in youth unemployment and renewed
emphasis upon life-long learning, training and improved
mobility. We also need further action to address
demographic change through an integrated approach to
safeguard sustainable and universal pensions.
3-091
Sudre (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-inOffice of the Council, Mr President of the Commission,
the Spanish Presidency of the European Union has given
itself the theme of ‘More Europe’, which is a desire
shared by a large majority of Europeans who, as of 1
January 2002, now share the same currency. ‘More
Europe’ must not mean more of an omnipresent, overbearing Europe. On the contrary, ‘More Europe’ must
mean more of a political Europe where it is necessary to
improve our standing on the international stage and to
enable our economies to become stronger and to create
further jobs.
Spain is undertaking its third presidency of the Union
and therefore has proven experience in this area. More
importantly, the Spanish government led by Mr José
Maria Aznar, whom I welcome, is implementing a
successful policy which, if applied to Europe, could turn
out to be extremely worthwhile.
As far as the fight against terrorism is concerned, there
is, unfortunately, no need to dwell at length on the
tragedies that too often plunge the people of Spain into
32
mourning, as they fall victim to barbaric acts carried out
by ETA and its counterparts. It is now easy for us to
understand, particularly after the events of 11
September, that the primary concern of the Spanish
Presidency is, quite clearly, the fight against terrorism
within an area of freedom, security and justice.
However, what citizens really expect from Europe, and
from the authorities in general, is for us to put in place
the conditions to create a competitive economy that will
guarantee the prosperity of as many people as possible.
Mr Aznar, you know how to do this in Spain; we are
sure that you will provide the necessary impetus so that
the objective set in Lisbon to achieve full employment
by 2010 is consolidated and attained within the
framework of a timetable defined at Barcelona in March.
It will come as no surprise to any of you that, having
been elected to represent the island of Reunion, I
welcome the will that was clearly expressed by the
Spanish Presidency to pursue the implementation of
Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, so that the
special characteristics of such regions are taken into
account in each of the European Union’s policies.
Lastly, I would like to point out to the President-inOffice of the Council that the first meeting of the
Convention will not be held at the European
Parliament’s headquarters in Strasbourg; it will instead
take place in one of our working places, namely
Brussels.
3-092
Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, the
Spanish Presidency has rightly named the fight against
terrorism as its first priority. The Spanish Presidency has
also rightly indicated the importance of money
laundering to terrorism. Because the true driving force of
terrorism, at least in Europe, is not ideology, but money.
We are concerned about whether it will be possible for
the Council to overcome the obstacle standing in the
way of fighting terrorism resulting from certain
governments blocking the Community proposals on the
fight against money laundering.
Secondly, Mr President, the Spanish Presidency insists
on the problem of immigration and the need to control it.
The Presidency’s programme also talks about the
outermost regions. I wanted to link these two problems
by pointing out that the outermost regions, although they
are far from the Community’s continental territory, are
in fact part of our territory and that it is currently
necessary to control illegal immigration into these
regions. I do not believe that the procedure adopted by
certain local authorities is the appropriate one: i.e.
providing free tickets so that illegal immigrants in the
Canaries can be transported to the mainland of the
continent. But if we do not adopt measures on a
Community level, it is possible that other local
authorities will feel obliged to do the same.
Finally, Mr President, over recent years it seems that
both the Council and the Commission have forgotten
16/01/2002
where Latin America is. It is as if the navigation charts
have disappeared. The Spanish Presidency points to the
importance of holding the Ibero-American Summit and,
also in the President’s speech, he rightly stresses the
importance of helping certain countries such as
Argentina and Colombia. I believe it is very important
that the Spanish Presidency takes the helm once again,
places Latin America on the continent’s navigation
charts and, like in the Fifteenth Century, supports, in this
new era, the link between the European Union and Latin
America.
3-093
Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, first of
all, I should like to extend a warm welcome to the
Spanish Presidency.
Prime Minister Aznar, we have great faith in you, and
we also wish you every success on the sound plans you
have for the coming six months.
In my view, an important task is to ensure that the
Convention, which is to develop proposals on Europe’s
future, gets off to a flying start. It is also important that
this be done quickly, and I am pleased to hear it is to be
launched as soon as the end of February. I have heard
you say that the reform, or deepening, of the European
institutions is necessary in order to make a success of
enlargement. I could not agree more. I have also heard
you call for more co-decision and more transparency. I
would like to endorse that too. The European Parliament
must become a normal parliament with full legislative
powers, and the Council, in its capacity as co-legislator,
must become more transparent in its working practices,
possibly modelling itself on the German Federal
Council.
I also support Mr Aznar’s plea for anti-terrorism policy
to be accelerated and Europol to be reinforced. Mr
Aznar, you are right in saying that tougher action is
required to tackle the drugs trade. Together with the
trafficking in human beings, the drugs trade appears to
be one of the key sources of funding for terrorism. It is
high time we clamped down on this evil, and I hope you
will receive Dutch support for this.
I should like to finish off with an observation with
regard to socio-economic policy. You have spoken of
the need for more labour mobility. In my country, the
Netherlands, there is a labour shortage. There are tens of
thousands, and probably even more than one hundred
thousand, vacancies for jobs which cannot be filled. The
care sector and public transport spring to mind. These
sectors are performing badly because of a shortage of
labour. Why are European job agencies not being set up
to analyse which countries have labour shortages and
which have labour surpluses? Surely it should be
possible, with the help of brief language courses, to help
the millions of unemployed in Germany to find jobs in
the Netherlands, for example. If you could do something
about this, you would be helping both the countries with
labour shortages and those with labour surpluses.
3-094
16/01/2002
Roth-Behrendt (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Prime
Minister, you have, amongst the six priorities of the
Spanish Presidency of the Council, managed to say not
one word on the protection of the environment. That is, I
admit, a respectable achievement, indeed a transparent
one. I have had to listen too often over the last twelve
years to Presidents of the Council who, among their
priorities at the outset of their presidency, announce
things they cannot bring to pass. In this case, you do not
even announce anything. I find that very frank, very
transparent and very clear. I am very grateful to Mr
Salafranca for bringing Groucho Marx into the
discussion earlier on. I, too, was reminded of Groucho
Marx when I listened to that speech, because I must
admit that I found it more than grotesque. Groucho Marx
represents the grotesque, and I find it more than
grotesque that the Spanish Presidency of the Council, ten
years after the Rio Summit and in the year of the
Johannesburg World Summit, has nothing to say about
the protection of the environment.
Mr Aznar, it is not for your Ministry of the Environment
to do that, it is for you to do it. Let me remind you that
the last summit, the Summit in Gothenburg, called upon
you, the European Council, to use your meeting in
Barcelona in the first half of the year to check on what
was still needed. You must, then, say something about
emissions trading. You must say when you want to ratify
the Kyoto protocol. You must, for example, say when
you intend to implement the Sixth Environmental Action
Programme's strategies for the various industry sectors.
In no way is that a matter for the environmental
authorities in your own country; it is a matter for you
personally. We always consider it important to cooperate
closely and well with the Council, and so, Mr Aznar, I
offer you assistance should your government have need
of it. I am perfectly ready to offer you all my group's
suggestions – with all respect of course – as may be
necessary to enable you to perform your duties at the
beginning of the year.
(Applause)
3-095
Carlsson, Gunilla (PPE-DE).  (SV) Mr President, Mr
President-in-Office of the Council, I welcome your
presidency. The actual introduction of the euro is a red
letter day for those of us who want to see European
integration and economic development. The task for the
EU is now to ensure that the euro lives up to the
expectations surrounding it. That is why it is a matter of
such urgency that Spain should give priority to a
dynamic and competitive Europe.
The Socialist leader in this House, who otherwise
appears to have no interest at all in this debate, adopted a
particularly ‘whining’ tone in his remarks on this
subject. The fact is that you as a head of government, Mr
Aznar, have made a much more dynamic Spain possible,
thanks to modernisation of the administration and of
economic life. By means of important structural changes
and tax reductions, Spain now presents fewer obstacles
to new companies’ setting up and has created new job
33
opportunities. That is why unemployment is falling and
prosperity increasing in Spain. That may be sad for Mr
Barón Crespo, but it is good for Spaniards. It is precisely
this transformation that the EU must carry out if the
Lisbon process is to be taken seriously. The Socialists
have let two out of ten years simply pass by. The
Spanish Presidency must now increase the pressure and,
instead of just talking, pursue a policy of prosperity,
development and opportunities for the people of Europe.
Enlargement has now entered a crucial phase. I trust that
Spain, which has experienced dictatorship and has
secured democracy and freedom through European
cooperation, will now guarantee that the Council does
not leave anything undone in the work of enlargement
under your leadership and that Spain will show the same
solidarity and good will as has been shown to your
country for fifteen years.
Finally, I am also looking forward to a presidency whose
relations with the United States are characterised by
friendship, respect and independence. Good luck in what
you intend!
3-096
Sakellariou (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Presidentin-Office of the Council, Secretary of State, Mr
President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the
European Union has, since the Cologne Extraordinary
Summit in June 1999, possessed a European security and
defence identity which, for the first time, is truly worthy
of the designation ‘common’. We have achieved great
steps forward in this area, which will allow us to use the
Rapid Reaction Force, which will be ready for action
from 2003 onwards, to independently carry out what are
termed the Petersberg tasks, at least on our own
continent and in any case with an appropriate UN
mandate.
Mr President-in-Office, I would like to add a brief
observation to your statements and make a major request
of the Spanish Presidency. Taking the observation first,
you have described the Rapid Reaction Force as being
also an instrument against terrorism in the European
Union. I would say that, in our democratic states, the
combating of terrorism is primarily a task for the internal
forces of law and order and the justice authorities.
Should military actions also become necessary, as they
did after 11 September, what we call the principle of the
rule of law nevertheless remains untouched. My request
to the Spanish Presidency is that, where military
operations are mounted under the sole leadership of the
European Union, there must be the possibility of falling
back on the material resources of NATO, especially in
transport and reconnaissance capacities, and also, to
some extent, in the command structures.
It is truly astonishing that the agreement we need
between the EU and NATO has, through Turkey's
resistance, not yet come about. The proposal that Great
Britain and the United States, without the EU's mandate,
presented at the Laeken Summit, is unsuitable and
unacceptable. So I ask that the Spanish Presidency
34
should see to it that we get an agreement with NATO, so
that our security and defence policy may be secured.
(Applause)
3-097
De Sarnez (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Spain is
assuming the Presidency of the European Union at an
historic moment for European integration. Two major
events have occurred. The people of Europe now have
the euro in their pockets. This is an incredible success
and we must rapidly construct the political Europe that
they lack. The second major event was 11 September,
which reminded us, as if this were necessary, of the
nature of the new threats hanging over the world. The
Spanish Presidency is facing these two challenges. By
placing the fight against terrorism at the forefront of its
programme, the Spanish Presidency is thus meeting the
expectations of a Europe that must become an area of
security and a constitutional State for all European
citizens. All resources must be properly implemented at
European level to strengthen the instruments of the
constitutional State, such as the introduction of the
European arrest warrant, the freezing of funds, the
mutual recognition of judicial decisions and the
development of Eurojust.
However, in order to meet the expectations of our fellow
citizens, we have to face another challenge. We must
bring about a strong, powerful, and therefore
democratic, political Europe. The Spanish Presidency
will be able to use the work of the Convention so that it
can go ahead, at last, with the simplification of the
treaties, with the task of clearly dividing up the
competences between the European Union and Member
States, but, above all, with rapidly bringing about the
drafting of a European constitution.
On all of these issues, I know that the Spanish
Presidency will press ahead with determination. The
programme that was proposed to us today meets the
challenges facing us. We know your vision, we know
your determination, and that is why we have confidence
in you.
3-098
Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, tomorrow
this Parliament will approve the resolution on the
Commission’s Green Paper on the future of the common
fisheries policy, which draws up its future.
I would like the motto ‘more Europe’, chosen by the
Spanish Presidency, to be converted this year into the
definitive integration of fishing into the single market,
and I would like a CFP to be more participatory, a CFP
whose definition and application involve the presence
not only of central governments but also of the regions,
of regions with competences in the field of fishing, and
of course economic and social actors.
Fishing, Mr President, works on an international basis,
like the whole of the economy. Its reform cannot ignore
this reality. Nevertheless, it worries us to see that the
Community fleet’s access to external waters is being
16/01/2002
restricted and that our fleet is losing fishing grounds
rather than gaining them. In six months’ time we will be
able to judge this Presidency by its results and see
whether it has been able to reverse this trend.
Given the importance of this economic activity to
numerous European regions, most of them peripheral
and Objective 1, and its role as an element of economic
integration and social cohesion, we want you to take it
into account as a priority objective when it comes to
strategies for safeguarding the European social model,
which you mentioned in your speech. I would like you to
make that explicit commitment here, thereby helping
this sector to recover its fighting spirit and confidence.
3-099
Elles (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to deal
with one aspect of this debate, and that is the long-term
credibility of the European Union's institutions.
Mr President-in-Office, you have come here today to
give your commitment – which is very warmly
welcomed – to deeper democratic control and also
agreed to come before this House another couple of
times before the end of your presidency.
Since the mid-1980s we have made great strides with
Treaty revision for greater parliamentary involvement in
the democratic process. However, before the next Treaty
change in 2004 and the European elections that year, we
need to make more progress towards reform in each of
the European institutions.
Commission President Mr Prodi has made great strides
towards being able to promote people on merit and make
changes to various rules and regulations which will
come before this House in the next few months. The
trouble is that very few people in this House or in the
outside world know about the changes which have been
made in the Commission. We would welcome a
document stating what has now happened, so that we
know what has been going on.
Mr President-in-Office of Parliament, we have your
commitment to a thorough reform of our working
methods and, as you have been in office for only 24
hours, we cannot expect changes already, but you have
our support, in particular as regards Parliament's 2003
budget, for major changes in the way we work.
Finally, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have
indicated in your programme that:
3-100
(FR) ‘Thus, the Spanish Presidency…will, in line with
the conclusions of the Laeken European Council, set in
motion a discussion on proposals to be submitted by the
Secretary-General before the Barcelona meeting, with a
view to drawing relevant operational conclusions from
those proposals at the Seville European Council.’
3-101
Is it possible, in the interests of genuine democratic
process, that we in Parliament could be consulted on the
16/01/2002
documents you will be putting forward to the Councils
in Barcelona and Seville? In the world outside, the
Council is often known as ‘Kremlin West’, one of the
last places where legislation takes place behind closed
doors, and we, as parliamentarians, would like to see
you come into the real world.
(Applause)
3-102
Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE). – (ES) Mr President,
amongst the priorities of the Spanish Presidency, I have
heard no mention of a European policy that shows
greater solidarity with the rest of the world. As
coordinator of the Group of the Party of European
Socialists, I would like you to clarify your plans for
social development and for the reduction of poverty,
which the Commission, Parliament and previous
presidencies have set as objectives.
You mentioned the Monterrey International Conference.
What position will you be adopting on the policies that
need to be funded? Who is to fund them? Are you going
to support the objective of 0.7% of GDP, approved at the
last Development Council by the majority of Member
States? How much cooperation will there be with Latin
America and with the countries of the Mediterranean,
with an integrated approach between trade relations and
the fight against poverty? What will your position be on
the commitments given through the United Nations
programmes on education and health for all? What will
your position be on the current conflicts in Africa? I
hope that on all of these issues you will consult the
European Parliament and, also, civil society and the
NGOs.
I wish you a Presidency, Mr Aznar, that will be fruitful
for Europe.
3-103
Bodrato (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Aznar has
laid down the clear objective of ‘More Europe’ for the
Spanish Presidency and has explained how he intends to
carry out the programme. Time constraints dictate that
we will have to focus on a small number of issues and
not waste words. The first issue is the Convention,
which will have to supplement the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, promoting the Community method
and the federalist approach as a guarantee of political
democracy, economic integration and social cohesion.
The second issue is the Lisbon reforms, which have now
become intertwined with the launch of the euro. The
single currency consolidates the single market and
represents a decisive step towards political Europe and a
common economic policy. The single currency
strengthens Europe’s position in the face of globalisation
but means that it is no longer possible for national
systems to restore competitiveness by devaluing. The
Stability Pact must be respected. In the interests of
economic recovery and employment, therefore, the
structural reforms, mentioned specifically by President
Prodi, need to be pursued with the necessary
determination. This strategy must be consistent with the
35
overall goals of integration, cohesion and harmonisation
of the series of policies upholding the European social
model. It is not easy to pursue apparently conflicting
goals in a balanced way, but this is the challenge of the
present times.
The third issue is the ‘political’ contribution that Europe
can make to the fight against terrorism which has been
occupying all the major democracies since 11
September. I call, in particular, for the reinvigoration of
the Mediterranean policy and for peace initiatives in the
Middle East. Spain has, on many occasions, been at the
forefront of action addressing these issues.
Lastly, I support the pledge made by Mr Aznar
regarding Argentina, a country afflicted by a crisis
which is threatening democracy itself and which could
exacerbate the difficult situations of other Latin
American countries.
3-104
Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, as
the last speaker, I should like to thank the President-inOffice of the Council for having remained present in the
Chamber for the entire debate.
In this speech, which will be brief, I should also like,
first of all, to express my personal satisfaction at the
presence in the Chamber today of the President of the
Spanish government, José María Aznar, who, long
before the events of 11 September had already made the
defence of freedom and the fight against those who seek
to curb it, such as terrorist murderers, one of the
leitmotivs of his political approach. The results of this
political action at European level could not be more
heartening.
Secondly, the Union’s immigration policy, Mr
President-in-Office of the Council, requires your drive
and your sensitivity towards such a burning issue, which
is, I note, one of the Presidency’s objectives. I refer, for
example, to the undeniable need to give a boost to
Community legislation regulating aspects as important
as family reunification, asylum procedure, or reception
conditions for asylum seekers, in order to achieve a
proper organisation of migratory flows, which
effectively combats people trafficking in human need
and who are responsible for the tragic deaths that are
taking place in some parts of European territory, such as
the Andalusian and other Spanish coastlines.
3-105
President. – Before I call the next speaker I ask
colleagues in the House to take their seats so that we can
listen with some parliamentary dignity to the reply of the
presidency.
3-106
Aznar, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Thank
you very much, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I
thank you for all of the speeches you have made during
this sitting, which I have listened to with the greatest
interest. I wish to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that, of
course, I share many of the aspirations that you have
36
expressed here today. I also share many of your
concerns but nor should it come as a surprise to anybody
that I do not fully agree with some of what I have heard.
I must of course, say, however, that, in general terms, I
have the feeling that the basic elements of the issues, the
objectives and the hopes that we, the various institutions
and Europe’s citizens in general share are or can, quite
reasonably, be promoted for the future, when it comes to
putting our ideas and our plans into practice.
I should like, first of all, to emphasise the importance of
institutional dialogue and, within institutional dialogue,
once again emphasise my commitment. We will have the
opportunity to speak about this European impetus and
also about the work of the Spanish Presidency, both in
March, following the Barcelona European Council, and
in June, following the Seville European Council. This is
not, of course, to undermine the importance of the
appearances by various members of the Spanish
government at the various parliamentary bodies of this
institution.
I must tell you that, as holder of the Presidency, I see no
problem in establishing what some of you have
requested: the creation of a working group for
interinstitutional dialogue that encompasses the Council,
Parliament and the Commission and which will enable
us to see clearly how best our work can be carried out. I
do not think that the Commission has any problem with
this either. Therefore, from this point of view, I am
aware of, and agree with some of your concerns, such as
the processing of documents concerning the second and
third pillars, which must be resolved with all the
guarantees required by the circumstances, the facts
themselves and by the sensitivity of the matter, as is
done in many national parliaments, with guarantees of
security and of confidentiality. We can clearly make
progress on many of these issues and, therefore, the
Presidency will not raise any opposition to the creation
of this interinstitutional working group.
I should like to focus my speech, if I may, on the
Presidency’s objectives and work programme and on no
other matter. Ladies and gentlemen, we have before us
an extremely important opportunity for the European
Union, at an historic juncture, which is of great
significance. In my opinion, we have before us an
opportunity of which we must not fail to take advantage.
This opportunity is evident in various situations. The
entire world situation has changed following 11
September and in a tragic fashion. The priority in the
world today is security and the fight against terrorism.
The change that has taken place since 11 September is
causing fundamental strategic changes in the world that
will define the world of tomorrow, on which the
European institutions must reflect, maintain dialogue
and on which they must adopt a position for the future.
The European Union as such, through its various
institutions, cannot remain on the sidelines of the
important debate and participation in the profound
strategic changes that the world will be seeing.
16/01/2002
Secondly, this is a very important opportunity from the
economic point of view. I say this for various reasons.
Firstly, because for the first time we have the euro, our
single currency, which is a guarantee of stability and
which has been a great success. Secondly, because for
structural reasons, to which I shall refer later, our
economies need to continue putting their faith in major
reforms. Thirdly, because we are going through a period
of economic slowdown and unless we can take
advantage of the introduction of the euro, providing
impetus for economic reforms, we will be wasting an
opportunity to help our economies to recover, which is,
of course, extremely important.
The third aspect that must be emphasised is that we are
close to concluding a process which has, of course, a
huge scope, that we might call enlargement, expansion
or whatever we want; but which is, ultimately, the great
political process of European unification. This is the
objective that would, in itself, of course, fulfil the
ambitions of a political generation that is able to look
back on European history and which is concerned about
planning and organising our future in a reasonable way.
Lastly, we are aware that we must undertake a reform of
the institutions, and we have, for this purpose, proposed
the Convention and an Intergovernmental Conference.
All of these ambitions provide us with a crucial
opportunity. I wish to convey to the European
Parliament the commitment of the Spanish Presidency to
share ambitions and, at the same time, to work
coherently to achieve our objectives more effectively.
This is why we have set out various priorities, on which,
in response to your speeches, I should like to briefly
comment.
First of all, with regard to the fight against terrorism, this
is no longer a problem affecting only some people, but
one that affects all of us, a problem to which some could
show greater commitment, but it is quite clearly the
responsibility of everyone. Of course, I appreciate, as I
have said, the work and the efforts that the European
Parliament has devoted to this matter. Of course, we
have to consider the fight against terrorism not only in
itself but also in relation to the creation of the area of
freedom, security and justice, and to the Tampere
commitments that are part of this more integrated
Europe that we wish to build for the future.
Various speakers, in particular Mr Poettering, have
called for us to be resolute in the fight against terrorism.
They are right. We must ask ourselves if in general
terms, the European Union is capable at this historic
juncture of dealing with the task in hand. I would say
that it is reasonably capable, that the European arrest and
surrender warrant – supported, of course, by all Fifteen
Member States of the Union – the fight against the
funding of terrorist organisations and the definition of a
list of groups of organisations and persons that support
terrorism are extraordinary steps. It is my fervent hope
that in its sitting of 5 February, the European Parliament
will also take a definitive step in this direction.
16/01/2002
37
3-108
How can this be done? This must be done on the basis of
the guarantees provided by the Rule of Law. You are
quite right, ladies and gentlemen, in saying that the Rule
of Law and our freedoms must be fully guaranteed. It is
also true, and it should not be forgotten at this time that
this is exactly what safeguards democracies and that this
is exactly what these people wish to destroy and what
those who dedicate themselves to carrying out or
supporting terrorism wish to put an end to.
(Applause)
Maintaining democracy through the Rule of Law is
precisely, of course, our best guarantee. There cannot be
– and indeed there are none – half-way houses in the
fight against terrorism, because there are no half-way
houses between life and death, between legality and
lawlessness, between respect for the law and complicity
with terrorism. What there must be is a clear defence,
when necessary, from an international point of view, by
means of an international coalition, and, when
necessary, with the domestic commitment or with the
international cooperation of all, to ensure that our
freedoms and our Rule of law triumph. And in order to
achieve this, we have to work, from an operational
perspective, on issues of security, intelligence,
cooperation between police forces, joint investigation
teams and also on the common judicial issues that are a
crucial part of the process of European integration.
Furthermore, if we are coherent and consider terrorism
to be one of the greatest threats currently facing our
civilisation, we will have to include terrorism as an
objective in the definition of the European Union’s
security and defence policy. I think that this is a very
important aspect and warrants very special treatment, at
least in two chapters of relations that are highly relevant
to the European Union: the first concerns the United
States, with whom we also have discuss legal and
criminal matters, whilst at the same time, of course,
respecting our extradition system and maintaining our
position of clear opposition to the death penalty, or of
support for the jurisdiction of the courts and for all the
sentences that can be handed down to an individual. But
we have to discuss such matters.
We also have to discuss matters in order to reach
conclusions on some of your concerns about the
importance of cooperation with Russia in the fight
against terrorism.
3-107
President. – I am sorry to interrupt, Prime Minister.
Colleagues, I really must insist that you take your places
quietly. I ask the ushers to approach any Members who
are having conversations and ask them to sit or to leave.
(Applause)
We cannot work in intolerable parliamentary conditions
on an occasion such as this!
Aznar, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Mr
President, I wish to tell you that, in this context, we can
move ahead with the creation of the International
Criminal Court, with improving the instruments of
international legal security. But in this chapter in the
fight against terrorism I would like to conclude by
making one thing quite clear: let us never forget – I
know that the vast majority of this House has not
forgotten – the moral lesson which these victims have
taught us and let us never lose sight of our fundamental
responsibilities.
Failing to condemn terrorism and yet talking about
‘dialogue’, supporting terrorism and yet talking about
‘dialogue’, murdering and yet talking about ‘dialogue’,
apart from being a mistake, is an insult to common sense
and to the memory of those individuals who have given
their lives or who risk their lives precisely to protect
human rights, freedom, the Rule of Law and democracy,
especially in certain countries.
(Applause)
The second issue I should like to highlight, Mr
President, ladies and gentlemen, is that the euro is a
European success and perhaps, therefore, we can
discuss, amongst ourselves, a more or less exhaustive
list of names of people who could be key players or who
deserve to be recognised on the euro. Above all,
however, this is clearly a success for Europe, for
European society, for its institutions and for Europe’s
citizens. It is a success for those who conceived of the
idea and who promoted it, for those who saw it through,
for those who put it into practice and, above all, it is a
success for the future of Europe.
I would say, ladies and gentlemen, that the euro is not a
point of arrival, but a point of departure, so that having
cleaned up our economies in Europe – a process which
we must maintain and continue – we must preserve the
ambition of the Lisbon strategy, which is a Europe of
full employment, a Europe that is more competitive and
better equipped, in terms of people’s well-being, to face
our future options in the world. This is clearly the path
we need to take. This is why linking the introduction of
the euro to the process of economic reform and situating
this within the scope of the Barcelona European Council
is absolutely crucial for Europe.
I should like to briefly remind you all of some figures. In
the 1990s, the United States of America experienced
growth every year, except one, of more than 3%. In the
1990s, the European Union experienced growth every
year, except one, of less than 3%. As I mentioned in my
opening speech, the European Union has fallen behind
the United States by six income points. As I said, the
capacity for technological renewal in the United States
and for European investment in North America, which
has been better received there than in the countries of
Europe, has caused a deep-seated crisis in Europe’s
economies.
38
I think that we would be making a mistake if we did not
realise that there are structural factors, in addition to
those resulting from the current economic crisis, that
warrant our attention. This is why Barcelona, at this
juncture, now that the euro has been introduced,
represents an absolutely crucial challenge. A challenge
to do what? The challenge to realise the objective of full
employment.
If I may be allowed to put it this way, I am one of those
who still believes that the best social policy, the best
policy with which we can show solidarity and also the
policy of common sense is the one that enables us to
create employment and boost economic growth and
which, therefore, helps societies to prosper and to be
fairer, more equitable and to show greater solidarity.
(Applause)
This is exactly the issue at stake. This is why we are
discussing transport, energy and the financial plan. I
hope that the Commission and Parliament are able to
effectively resolve their recent differences and set out
the financial action plan. This is why we are discussing
education and employment. This is the method we must
use to work towards a Europe of greater competitiveness
and progress. Unless we do so – and I am here giving
you my personal opinion – we will see an economic
recovery in the United States which will provide that
country with many advantages over Europe in terms of
competition and in terms of employment and the
economy. This is something that no-one should confuse
with the significance of not maintaining or of
questioning the European social model. The only way in
which we can preserve the European social model is by
making it sustainable, viable and fundable, and this is
achieved through growth and employment, which are, of
course, the approaches that we have to support.
(Applause)
I have already referred to my solid commitment to
enlargement. On this point, I shall mention three specific
issues. Enlargement can, and should, take place and we
must work to ensure that this objective is achieved on 31
December of this year. There are three basic conditions
that must be fulfilled: First of all, the principle of
differentiation: it must be the candidate countries which
are ready that are allowed to join. Secondly, respect for
the Community acquis: the Community acquis cannot be
questioned if we want enlargement to be achieved within
the deadlines that have been set; and thirdly, respect for
Agenda 2000, for the commitments given in Berlin,
which contain and explain the basic elements of
enlargement. If these three pillars are respected, the
negotiating chapters and the common positions will lead
to the historical process of enlargement. Reforms will
have to be carried out and decisions taken in the
immediate future, but we will have made a major
contribution to the great political process of
enlargement.
16/01/2002
In this regard, I should like to refer to an issue that is
closely linked to this: the establishment of the
Convention, institutional reforms and the idea of more
Europe. I, ladies and gentlemen, believe in an integrated
and diverse Europe. I understand that there may be some
people who feel that more Europe, that a more integrated
Europe will put an end to the current legal and political
situation or to national States as we know them. This
will not happen and the integrated Europe that has
brought us this far is something history has never seen
before, which represents a great success and is
something that we must be able to preserve in all its
diversity. Furthermore, each national State will be
responsible for democratically arranging its distribution
of competences between the national State, between
communities or regions and between local authorities.
The European Union, a fellowship of States, will be
responsible for providing the means of participation, but
let us not confuse points of view or possibilities, and let
us not institutionally change something that has provided
Europe with guarantees of security, prosperity, freedom
and economic success. From this moment on, the
Convention will have to undertake its work under the
terms that have been agreed and the Intergovernmental
Conference in 2004 will have to undertake its own by
representing the Member States.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I shall refer briefly to
issues concerning external and common security policy.
I wish to say that once European defence policy has
been declared viable, the development of the second
pillar is absolutely fundamental. I agree with the
honourable Member who said that appropriate
operational agreements could be concluded with the
North Atlantic Alliance. It is absolutely crucial that these
agreements are concluded in a Europe of security and
defence that does not, in reality, exist and whose absence
we complain about on a daily basis. I hope that the
Member States which have greater responsibility for
facilitating these agreements are sensible enough to do
so in the near future.
We must and we can assume more responsibilities in the
field of security and, naturally, this is also one of the
most significant challenges we face for the future. In
terms of potential basic strategic elements of priorities, I
mentioned, although I shall not dwell on this, the United
States and Russia. I should like to express my
conviction, ladies and gentlemen, that this dialogue with
those two countries will determine a large part of the
future of our fellow Europeans. Furthermore, ladies and
gentlemen, we shall have many important issues to
discuss, one of which is the Mediterranean dialogue.
This is not simply something that the Spanish
Presidency wishes to promote but a vital European need
in the Europe of the euro and in the Europe of
enlargement. So I do not continue much longer and with
my apologies, Mr President, I shall mention only one
fact, because the terms ‘solidarity’ and ‘development’
have been mentioned on more than one occasion.
16/01/2002
39
If the countries of the southern shores of the
Mediterranean wish to maintain their current levels of
unemployment and resources, they will have to have
created 40 million jobs within ten years. This is a
considerable challenge from the point of view of the
demographic rate and of the economic situation of the
countries of the southern Mediterranean. It is an
absolutely crucial challenge for all European countries
and we would do well to think vary carefully about what
we can do to respond to these challenges.
I would say that Latin America – the second European
Union, Latin America and Caribbean Summit will be
held in Madrid; the first was held in Rio de Janeiro –
must be a strategic priority for the European Union and
is also important for development and for world
stability. Ladies and gentlemen, these were the
observations I wished to make at the first appearance of
the Spanish Presidency in this House.
with the application
(2001/2136(INI)).
of
Directive
90/314/EC
(Parliament adopted the resolution)
***
Recommendation for second reading: – on behalf of
the Committee on the Environment, Public Health
and Consumer Policy, on the common position
adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a
Decision of the European Parliament and of the
Council laying down a Community Action
Programme
promoting
non-governmental
organisations primarily active in the field of
environmental protection (13397/1/2001 – C50643/2001 – 2001/0139(COD)).
(Parliament approved the common position)
(Applause)
***
3-109
President. – Thank you, President-in-Office of the
Council. I note your willingness to come before the
House after the Barcelona Summit, which we believe is
an important additional moment for dialogue between
our institutions.
3-110
Vote
Report (A5-0462/2001) by Jackson, on behalf of the
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and
Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a Council
decision relating to the conclusion, on behalf of the
Community, of the Protocol on Water and Health to
the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of
Transboundary Watercourses and International
Lakes (COM(2001) 483 – C5-0644/2001 –
2001/0188(CNS)).
3-111
President. – The next item is the vote.
Proposal for a Decision (B5-0032/2002) pursuant to
Rule 150(1) of the Rules of Procedure by the
following Members: Poettering, on behalf of the
PPE-DE Group, Barón Crespo, on behalf of the PSE
Group, Cox, on behalf of the ELDR Group, CohnBendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Wurtz, on
behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, Collins, on behalf of
the UEN Group, Bonde, on behalf of the EDD Group,
on the numerical strength of committees.
(Parliament adopted the decision)
***
Proposal for a Decision by the Conference of
Presidents (B5-0021/2002) pursuant to Rule 150(2) of
the Rules of Procedure on the setting up a temporary
committee on foot-and-mouth disease.
(Parliament adopted the decision)
***
Report (A5-0463/2001) by Bushill-Matthews, on
behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public
Health and Consumer Protection, on general aspects
of consumer protection policy and more particularly
consumer information and education in connection
(Parliament adopted the resolution)
***
President. – That concludes the vote.
EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE
- Temporary committee on foot-and-mouth disease
3-112
Inglewood (PPE-DE), in writing. – I tried to tell the
House that, as some colleagues know, almost all my
livestock contracted foot-and-mouth disease and were
slaughtered. However, since I do not consider the
proposed Committee of Inquiry will affect me
financially, I voted in favour of the inquiry.
3-113
Election of Quaestors of Parliament
3-114
President. – The next item is the second round of the
election of the Quaestors of the European Parliament.
Voting: 570, valid votes: 567. Majority: 284.
Mr Poos: 304 – elected
Mr Balfe: 288 – elected
(Applause)
Mrs Smet: 288 – elected
40
16/01/2002
Mr Marinho: 264
Mrs Maes: 116.
Treaty of Maastricht, the euro has now found its way
into our pockets and, I think, into the hearts of our
fellow citizens.
No further votes are required. We have filled all five
positions for Quaestor. I congratulate all the individuals
who have been elected.
I invite you to a brief reception.
(The sitting was suspended at 1.24 p.m. and resumed at
3 p.m.)
3-115
IN THE CHAIR: MR COX
President
3-116
President. – I should like to inform the House that our
colleague in the Socialist Group, Mr John Hume, will
have the distinction in the near future of being awarded
the Mahatma Ghandi Peace Prize by the Indian
Government. The recipient last year of this new prize
was Mr Nelson Mandela. Given his outstanding record
of commitment to peace and reconciliation in Ireland, I
am very pleased to congratulate him. I am sure the
House will be very proud of this recognition of one of
our most distinguished Members.
3-117
Welcome
3-118
President. – The Delegation for Relations with Russia is
today being honoured with a visit by our Russian
colleagues, including Mr Vladimir Lukin. I see that
Vladimir, who is an old friend of mine, is upstairs
already. You are very welcome, Vladimir. He is Deputy
Chairman of the Russian State Duma and Co-Chairman
of the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation
Committee. It is wonderful to see you here, and I hope
we can meet personally. I should not say these things
from the chair. Vladimir, I have only been learning how
to be a chairman here since yesterday but it is good to
see old friends come to the House.
3-119
The operations to introduce the euro that have taken
place in these first two weeks have gone extraordinarily
well. Our most optimistic expectations have been more
than satisfied. Europe’s citizens have acted
enthusiastically and responsibly, and all the operators
involved in the changeover have shown themselves to be
dedicated and meticulous.
The entry into circulation of the euro on 1 January 2002
is the culmination of a project on which we have been
working for many years. Our fellow citizens feel that
European integration is making very slow progress.
Taking the historical view, however, we can see that it is
actually moving ahead at great speed. The Member
States took ten centuries to achieve monetary unification
in their territories and the Community has done the same
in little more than 40 years.
To start with, I should like to pay tribute to the men and
women who made the success of this project possible.
There are many, and mention has been made this
morning of some of them. I am not going to repeat their
names, which are fresh in everyone’s mind, but the
project has – if I may put it this way – not only fathers
but also mothers, and I should like to make specific
mention of these women by referring to one individual:
Christa Randzio-Plath, who embodies the involvement
and the commitment to the euro of this Parliament and
of her Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
(Applause)
It would be unfair, however, if I did not mention two
other Members of this Parliament: Karl von Wogau,
who, in his capacity as chairman of the Committee on
Economic and Monetary Affairs, also played a critical
role, and the previous President of the European
Commission, Jacques Santer. I should also like to
mention my predecessor, Yves-Thibault de Silguy, who
played a crucial role in the previous legislature.
Introduction of the euro
3-120
President. – The next item is the debate on the
introduction of the euro, which we have now had in our
pockets for some weeks and which is the fulfilment of a
long-cherished dream in the European Community. It
has been a wonderful tribute to the capacity of the
European Central Bank and the European System of
Central Banks; it has been a wonderful tribute to the
banking and financial and commercial system and the
retailing system; and, most of all, a wonderful tribute to
European citizens, who have taken to it with such
alacrity, that now it has virtually displaced the currencies
in the relevant Member States.
3-121
Solbes, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and
gentlemen, almost ten years after the signing of the
We have worked effectively together with Parliament
and I hope that we can continue to do so when
confronting new challenges in the task ahead of us. This
is why I should like to say that the introduction of euro
notes and coins is not only the culmination of a project.
It is also the beginning of a new era in the history of
European integration.
The physical reality of the euro affords us the
opportunity to make further progress in the process of
integration. I shall refer to this later on and I should like
to focus now on more critical aspects of these early days
of the changeover.
First of all, I should like to highlight the enthusiasm of
Europe’s citizens towards their new currency. This has
undoubtedly been a crucial factor in the success of the
16/01/2002
operation. The citizens of Europe have rapidly integrated
the euro into their daily lives.
Before of the first of January, the sale of currency kits
had already been a success. From the first of January,
consumers began using notes on a massive scale. The
volumes of withdrawals from ATMs were higher than
expected from the first days onwards. The amount of
business taking place at bank counters was so great
during the first week of January that, in some countries,
the volume of withdrawals or exchanges in banks was
greater than the volume of operations at ATMs.
Another indicator of the success of the single currency
amongst the public has been the rapid progress of
payments in euros. These had already reached 20% on 2
January, the first working day. Today – that is to say,
only nine days later – nine out of ten payments are being
made in euros. The operation has been a success,
therefore, given that over 90% of these transactions are
taking place in euros after two weeks.
My second comment on the adaptation of automatic cash
machines is that this has also been swift and has taken
place throughout the euro zone. For the last two years,
the Commission and the European Central Bank have
asked banks to change their plans and adapt ATMs with
almost immediate effect. This course of action has been
a success. On average, 80% of ATMs were adapted by
the first of January. This figure rose to 90% by 2 January
and to 97% by 3 January. By 4 January, almost all
ATMs were only issuing euros.
41
Member States and all players in the changeover in the
months leading up to the first of January, I can tell you
that, according to the reports submitted to us by the
national authorities responsible, there has been no
significant increases in prices as a consequence of the
changeover to the euro, with the exception of a few
isolated incidents. Furthermore, in some cases there have
been downward adjustments, although, it is also fair to
say, in other cases and on an individual basis, the
opposite may have occurred.
Overall – I repeat – there has been no significant
increase in prices and we do not, therefore, expect to see
a negative impact on inflation for the month of January.
In conclusion, the balance sheet for these two first weeks
is, in the opinion of the Commission, very positive. The
greatest exchange operation in history has taken place
practically without mishap. It is a huge triumph for the
Union and proof of the high quality of our meticulous
preparations. The efforts of all key players in the
transition to the euro: the eurosystem, national
governments, the Commission, private operators and all
citizens have borne fruit.
The success of the introduction of the euro is the end of
a chapter – as I said before – but not the end of the work.
We must now harvest the fruits of this success by
increasing and deepening the coordination of our
economic policies and by undertaking the structural
reforms necessary to increase growth and employment in
the Union.
A comment on business: the majority of citizens have
sought primarily to get rid of their national currencies
and receive change in euros, thereby demonstrating their
desire to use only the euro as quickly as possible. By and
large, businesses respected their commitment to give
change in euros, which enabled the existing stock of the
former currencies to be disposed of rapidly.
We must now apply the same energy and ambition that
have guided the introduction of the euro to achieving the
coordination of economic policies which will enable us
to increase growth and employment. In the short term,
the framework of stability in the euro zone has enabled
us to provide a balanced and timely response to the
economic slowdown we are currently experiencing.
The acceleration of payments in euros together with the
exceptional measures adopted by the majority of
businesses meant that queues in shops were not as long
as they could have been. Saturday 5 January was the key
day for this issue. The test was conclusive and in all
participating States, queues were of normal length. This
situation did not change on the following Monday, when
sales began in many European countries.
The clear improvement in budget revenues has created
some leeway, which will help to cushion the impact of
the slight increase in budget deficits that have appeared
as a result of the global slowdown.
Nevertheless, the first week of January was extremely
complicated for business. On the one hand, the
frontloading of businesses turned out to be inadequate or
encountered logistical problems in some Member States.
On the other hand, many consumers spent money in
order to get rid of high denomination notes from the
national currency, which soon created problems with the
supply of lower-value notes in a number of the States
participating in the operation, a situation that was
resolved by one means or another.
With regard to the behaviour of prices, an issue to which
the Commission decided to draw the attention of the
In 2002 we hope to regain a satisfactory level of growth,
which will contribute to global economic recovery. The
success of the introduction of euro notes and coins will,
by eliminating uncertainty, assist this recovery,
stimulating consumer and business confidence.
In the medium term, the European Union set itself clear
objectives in Lisbon for increasing the potential for
growth and for job creation. In order to achieve these
objectives, it is important that we maintain the impetus
that will enable us to carry out the necessary reforms
which will, in turn, bring about an increase in the rates
of employment and productivity.
For this year, the Commission proposes three priority
areas: first of all employment policies and, in particular,
active labour market policies; secondly, economic
42
reforms to increase competitiveness, integration and
investment in key industries; and thirdly, investing in
knowledge to increase competitiveness and employment.
I shall not dwell any longer on these points, which were
yesterday the subject of the speech by the President of
the Commission.
Greater interdependence of the economies of the
Member States, and in particular within the euro zone,
calls for closer and more effective coordination of these
economic policies.
In this context, I would say that coordination must be
strengthened on the basis of a more accurate analysis of
the economic situation and the policy mix of the euro
zone. There must be greater openness in reaching
consensus on appropriate policies and the Member
States and the Commission must be given access to
information on the principal measures of economic
policy that each country will adopt in future so that the
peer review system that we have within the Community
can function effectively.
Moving ahead means meeting our commitments: those
in the Treaty and those in the Stability and Growth Pact.
Moving ahead also means facing up to new challenges.
This is what we, as the Commission, will be focussing
our efforts and our work on and we hope we will be able
to count on the cooperation of Parliament that we have
always enjoyed, and with which we hope to continue
working in the same efficient and consensual way that
we have in the past.
3-122
President. – Thank you, Commissioner. As you
remarked, many were referred to and thanked earlier
today. Of course we should thank you and your staff and
the College of Commissioners now for all the work you
have done in the past several years to bring this to a
reality. You have our congratulations and respect for
doing that.
3-123
von Wogau (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President,
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this speech is the
last I shall deliver in this Chamber as a member of the
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I have
been a member of this Committee for 22 years. From
tomorrow, I shall be a member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and
Defence Policy. I am convinced that the next step on the
road to the realisation of the European Union must be
political union. I look forward to working on this task in
future.
Looking back over these years, I would like to start by
recalling our colleague Basil de Ferranti, now sadly
deceased, who at that time drafted the first reports on the
creation of the internal market and thereby initiated this
whole development. It started off as a working party on
technical barriers to trade, later spawning the Kangaroo
Group. These were the first initiatives towards creating
the internal market. Jacques Delors was at that time the
chairman of Parliament's Committee on Economic and
16/01/2002
Monetary Affairs, in other words, Mrs Randzio-Plath,
our predecessor; he then, as French Finance Minister and
later as President of the European Commission, laid the
foundations on which these ideas were to become
realities.
I wish also to recall Jacques Moreau who, together with
me back then in 1984, presented the first report of the
European Parliament on proposals for the creation of the
internal market.
Seeing the enthusiasm that greeted the euro on 1
January, welcoming this new currency for 300 million
people in the European Union, we have to recall, on the
one hand, how difficult was the road to this. On the other
hand, though, we also have to ask ourselves what
conditions are required for the euro, our common
currency, to be successful in the long term?
Let me here list three conditions. The first is the
consistent development of the Stability and Growth Pact.
It is indeed almost ironic that we see today that it was
Germany, my homeland, that campaigned most
vigorously then for this Stability and Growth Pact with
its strict criteria, and that one can, or must, almost take it
for granted in the present situation that Germany will be
the first country to be affected by this treaty's sanctions.
I take the view, though, that we must be consistent here
if we want the euro to become and remain a stable
currency in the long term and interest rates in the
European Union to remain low in the long term for our
enterprises, as a condition of investment and growth.
The second condition is that, in the Member States and
in the EU, we make economic policy in accordance with
principles held in common. It was by a large majority
the will of Parliament that these principles should be
those of the social market economy.
Thirdly, we must move forward to political union. We
said before Maastricht that we wanted monetary union
and political union at the same time. Even then we were
saying that monetary union cannot exist in the long term
without political union. We must stay consistent on this
point. It is now that we must take these steps to political
union, at the core of which is a common foreign and
security policy.
I would like, finally, to pick up on something Jacques
Delors said. Jacques Delors, during the interminable
debates we had on the European internal market, once
remarked, and quite rightly, that you could not fall in
love with an internal market. In other words, there is
very little emotion involved. I would also say that the
same applies to a currency, although there are some of
us who have a very emotional, almost erotic,
relationship with the currency. What we need, though,
and what we must bring to light, is the awareness of a
common European identity, Europe-consciousness. I
believe that is surely the most important task facing us
as the European Parliament.
(Applause)
16/01/2002
3-124
43
Randzio-Plath (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, the
introduction of euro notes and coins has not only been a
success in logistical and organisational terms, but is also
already contributing to the enhanced creation and
discovery of a European identity. Not even Eurosceptics
in Italy can do anything about that.
The introduction of euro notes and coins, then, also
brings visible successes for consumers: prices for
consumer durables, such as cars, will fall. By its
completion of the internal market programme, the euro
also at last makes possible consumer-friendly
competition, which will lead to medium-term pressure
on prices and an incentive to higher quality.
(Applause)
The completion of economic and monetary union, of the
internal reform of the European Union and of a
European constitution and the successful eastward
enlargement of the EU are the great challenges that
Europe must face up to. There is one thing, though, that
we must not forget: the euro is not only a monetary
project; it was always a political project and is a
component of the political union of Europe.
The tangible euro makes Europe a fact of daily life, just
as we MEPs always said it would. The euro was, in a
manner of speaking, Parliament's first choice since it
was itself directly elected, a choice above all by the
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs To that
extent, the euro has for two decades been one of
Parliament's successful projects. We took our stand for a
market and a currency and played our part in creating
them. I think that thanks are owed to all the Members of
this House, and to you too, Mr von Wogau.
(Applause)
‘Euro’ will in my view become the affirmative word of
2002. After all, the euro embodies Europe's dynamism
and determination to create a European identity, improve
European competitiveness for the benefit of the
economy and employment and grow together into
permanent mutual solidarity. Monetary union completes
the internal market – the right answer to the challenges
of globalisation – and makes it at last work for everyone,
for small and medium-sized enterprises and above all for
people.
The euro will become a success because it is accepted
not only by the markets but also by people. Many are at
last rejoicing – as we Members always predicted they
would – to be living in Euroland. The success of the
introduction of euro notes and coins fills everyone with
enthusiasm and creates the climate of optimism that we
in Europe urgently need for investment, stimulation of
internal demand and thus for employment. The
introduction of euro notes and coins crowns and rewards
the sustained efforts on the road towards monetary
union. Today, many people are already wondering why
euro notes and coins had not been introduced much
earlier, something we Members had always demanded.
We call upon Denmark, Sweden and Great Britain to
come into the eurozone in their own interest before
eastward enlargement takes place.
The German mark was a currency with a proud past.
Three years of monetary union promise us an equally
stable monetary future. There have in any case been
lower interest rates under monetary union than in the
decades of the German mark that preceded it. This is
connected with the low level of interest, which
guarantees good financial conditions that favour
investment. It follows that monetary union has kept to
what was promised politically in the Maastricht Treaty,
namely price stability.
Europe is small in global terms, and so the internal
market, completed by monetary union, is quite certainly
the right answer. The euro, moreover, puts to the test the
ability of Europeans to organise unity in the interests of
all Europe's states. As far as further bold European
projects are concerned, it is both a connecting link
between them and a stumbling block.
William Shakespeare was right to maintain that ‘if
money go before, all ways do lie open’. It is to be hoped
that that applies also to more efficient and improved
coordination of economic, financial, employment and
social security policies. The euro urgently needs to be
accompanied by some sort of economic government.
Cyclic developments are no longer triggered by nation
states, but by economic issues, and so the EU summit in
Barcelona has been required to exchange dogmatism in
handling the Stability and Growth Pact, which does
leave some room to manoeuvre, for a sound policy
which is committed to monetary, financial and also
social stability.
Our commitment as a Parliament to monetary dialogue
with the European Central Bank was particularly
important. We took our stand in Parliament for the
independence of the European Central Bank, but also
demonstrated our commitment to that institution's
democratic accountability. Hence it is very important
that we should have organised and motivated a cultural
revolution in Europe, for the Member States' dealings
with the national central banks used not to have the
democratic accountability we have now. Money policy
thus becomes transparent and comprehensible and helps
us to fathom this mystery as well. For money policy is
not neutral; it too has an influence on the real economy,
on growth and employment.
3-125
Peijs (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, my group has
decided that the coordinators in the Committee on
Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism must be elected
at 3.30 p.m. Since I am one of the candidates, my
presence there will be required. Could I ask whether Mr
Pronk could read out my two-minute speech in my place
when my name appears on screen?
3-126
44
President. – Mrs Peijs, I have no objection to that if it is
acceptable to the House, which I think it is. So let us act
on that basis.
3-127
Peijs (PPE-DE). – (NL) Thank you.
3-128
Maaten (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, I will speak on
my own behalf. On 1 January, many European citizens
made their first acquaintance with the new currency: the
euro. And what an acquaintance that was. Barely two
weeks have passed and the euro has replaced the
national currencies everywhere. If Parliament’s wish to
distribute euro notes among the public before 1 January
had been complied with, a few smaller problems might
have been avoided, but that is probably just a detail.
I could not agree more that the changeover has been a
runaway success. This is mainly due to the citizens of
Europe, a fact to which you yourself have already made
reference, as befits a good Liberal. They have reacted to
the currency change with enthusiasm and patience.
Shopkeepers should also be praised. They have borne
the burden of the actual implementation and, in my
view, they are therefore the heroes of the conversion.
However, in my opinion, the introduction of the euro
notes and coins is merely a first step, and Commissioner
Solbes Mira has already made reference to this. What
matters most now is to ensure that the new currency
continues to be successful. This requires quite a bit from
all participating countries: the political will to support
the currency and not to cast it in a bad light, as some
members of the Italian government have done, the
political courage to leave the Stability Pact intact so that
the correct financial framework of the euro continues to
exist, and the political power to build on the success of
the euro. The time has come therefore, following the
most successful European project ever, to take steps in
order to further develop the internal market. If we really
want to achieve the objectives prescribed in Lisbon, we
must commit ourselves to the further liberalisation of the
internal market and to making it more flexible.
There are five clear priorities in this respect, namely
postal services, transport, electricity, gas and water.
These are vital in the liberalised and flexible knowledgebased economy that we are pursuing in Europe, and also
in the interests of the citizen. In this way, the citizens
know where they stand with Europe. Only by choosing
this option can the EU’s economic power be realised and
the new currency kept strong.
3-129
Abitbol (EDD). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner,
the largely successful introduction of the euro notes and
coins proves one thing and one thing alone: that the
people of Europe are highly pragmatic. The markets,
which always have the choice, appear to be much less
enthusiastic. In any case, I believe that the people will
use price levels as the true factor that determines
whether or not they will adopt the Euroland currency.
16/01/2002
However, this currency, which does not belong to any
one State, is now posing new problems. Shopkeepers
have already had to carry out, free of charge, the work of
the banks during the introduction of the euro. It is
conceivable that, during this period, shopkeepers had the
same interest as consumers in doing this. But now the
problem of counterfeiting has surfaced. Forged notes are
already at large and it is easy to envisage the different
currencies of north and south Euroland intermingling
this summer. For example, the EUR 200 and EUR 500
notes, which were not printed in France and in the
countries of southern Europe, will reach us, which is in
fact already happening with notes of German origin.
Next summer, these notes will be everywhere.
Obviously, shopkeepers are unable to identify potential
forgeries which are worth, if you will forgive me for
saying so, more than 3 500 of our poor old francs, in
other words, half the minimum wage in France. The
Commission will be responsible for compensating the
victims and those misled by forged euro, since no State
can be. But will the European citizens and the
shopkeepers, who accept forged currency by mistake
and because they are unable to tell the difference, be
compensated by Member States or by the European
Central Bank?
3-130
Della Vedova (NI). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner,
the euro is an undeniable success, and this is thanks to
the European Central Bank, the Commission and all
those who worked on the project, including the Members
of Parliament. Mr von Wogau said that the next stage
would be political union. I agree, but I feel it would be a
mistake to think that the success of the euro, its capacity
to be a strong, stable, reliable currency lies in political
union, which is necessary for other reasons. The euro
will be a strong currency if Europe’s economy is strong.
Commissioner, you mentioned the need to coordinate
economic policies several times in your speech. I feel
that there is something which is even more important
than coordinating economic policies, which, if we
overdo it, could even have negative repercussions. It is
important for there to be sound economic policies in
Europe: the strength of the euro will depend on it. We
must combine the transparent policies and get away
from the present rigidity. The strength of the euro, then,
will depend on the ability of these transparent policies to
make the economic systems more dynamic – as Mr
Maaten said – to free them from the constraints of
corporatism and dirigisme, to liberalise the markets, etc.
All this is often the result of too little rather than too
much economic policy and, in this respect, I feel that the
tension between policies, the competition between the
many different solutions adopted by the countries is of
benefit and, through a form of bona fide benchmarking,
can foster positive processes of emulation.
Although it does need some fine-tuning, the framework
of the single market, together with the Stability Pact – an
economic Constitution which many countries like Italy
did indeed lack – is broad enough to be able to embrace,
without conflict or contradiction, a transparent range of
16/01/2002
options between which it is left to the individual
countries to decide. I believe that leaving the Member
States the leeway to choose between options within the
framework of the single market will lead to a stronger
economy and that, as a result, the conditions necessary
for a stronger single currency will emerge.
3-131
Pronk (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, I am indeed
reading the text of Mrs Peijs, and in order to emphasise
this, I am standing in her place, but to remove any doubt
you may have: I am totally behind it. The ‘euro
introduction’ project has been a success. In the
Netherlands and in Ireland, the introduction of the euro
is practically completed. More than 90% of all payments
are already conducted in euros. Mrs Peijs is proud – and
I could not agree more – that European citizens have so
quickly adopted the euro with such a great sense of
innovation and have put their own currencies to one
side.
The Europeans did not need long changeover periods.
Today, we undoubtedly owe a special word of thanks
and recognition to the retail trade, which has absorbed a
whole host of difficulties with appropriate flexibility.
The banks and their staff have also contributed a great
deal to the smooth transition. We must now take an
important next step. The euro must remain a stable and
strong currency. For that purpose, the President of the
Central Bank must first and foremost remain where he is
and must closely monitor the bank’s objectives, namely
low inflation. It is almost more important for the
Member States to start to realise that they are not on
their own and are not fully autonomous, but that
everything they do, and notably what they do not do, has
a bearing on the entire Community and on the stability
of the currency.
45
Europe with a wonderful opportunity to develop in a
climate of stability, particularly as regards the medium
and long term. In the medium term, Europe has the
problem of how to disengage its economy from the US
cycle. Indeed, still today, European development is
heavily influenced by exports and, therefore, to a great
extent by US demand. This being the case, the current
recession in the United States could impact on us rather
than be offset by our capacity for independent growth.
This capacity for development of internal demand can
benefit greatly from the integration of monetary policy,
but it does not depend on this alone. It needs to be
boosted by an economic policy which combines
monetary policy with fiscal policy and, most
importantly, with a policy of research and innovative
investment such as that outlined at Lisbon, although this
policy has not actually been pursued.
The problem exists in the longer term of the euro as a
potential world-wide reserve currency on an equal
footing with the dollar. A Parliamentary resolution has
already pointed out that the central guideline for the
exchange policy should not be a strong or weak euro but
a stable euro, varying, of course, within a range in a way
that is not destabilising. To this end, it will be necessary,
sooner or later, to promote some form of agreement
between the US and European monetary policies for our
mutual and shared benefit. It is true, then, that the euro
does represent a major opportunity, but it is an
opportunity which has not yet been exploited. This
potential role – as the previous speakers have said too –
must be fully realised by politics, by Europe’s political
capacity, by a government responsible for the economy
which promotes the conditions for autonomous
development within Europe and which ensures effective
management of exchange outside Europe.
3-133
In order to sustain the confidence of the markets, it is
very important for the large Member States in particular
– and perhaps notably Germany – at long last to take the
necessary measures to open up their markets completely,
to make their labour markets more flexible, to make
their pension systems sustainable and to modernise their
social benefits. Instead of being the Union’s driving
force, these countries act more as a brake on the Union’s
progress. Any weakness in the currency is down to the
Member States and so far not to the Central Bank, which
is operating exceptionally well, except in the field of
payment balance systems, such as TARGET, and the
consumer system.
3-132
Ruffolo (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner,
there are two aspects of the introduction of the euro
which have been mentioned by Commissioner Solbes
and other speakers: the undeniable success and future
prospects of the euro. I will use the short amount of time
available to me to concentrate on the second aspect, for
the euro really is an open door to the future. Indeed, I
feel that, in addition to its great symbolic significance,
the introduction of the euro will not bring immediate
short-term effects for our economy or in terms of the
rate of inflation; however I do feel that it provides
Lang (NI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,
speaking with one voice through the Central Bank, the
governments of the euro zone countries are stating and
affirming that Europeans have given an enthusiastic,
even euphoric welcome to the euro, the imperial
currency, the new Reichsmark. According to official
reports, no problems have marred its triumphant arrival.
Fifteen days after the euro’s introduction, the evidence is
for all to see: the great majority of transactions are being
made in euro.
To put it bluntly, these crude propaganda-driven reports
are very wide of the mark. Nothing has really worked as
planned. There was a shortage of euro in the first days,
banks refused to do their work by refusing to carry out
currency exchanges or by placing a limit on them, and,
to top it all, by trying to charge for the transaction. Cash
dispensers cannot issue EUR 20 notes, vending
machines are refusing to accept euros produced in
another country and the opportunities for counterfeiters
are increasing because no one knows how to identify the
new notes. We have to admit it: European citizens are
not using the euro out of enthusiasm, but under duress
because it is increasingly difficult to get hold of their
national currency.
46
Some Germans, for whom there is no transition period,
are continuing to pay in deutschmarks even though this
currency ceased to be legal tender on 1 January.
There is no advantage, therefore, to using the euro for
everyday purchases. It only causes difficulties and is
costly to everyone, not to mention that its introduction
has meant States have had to abandon their sovereignty
unnecessarily. Everyone in Europe now has a foreign
currency and we are also seeing a return to rising prices.
Everyone realises, when doing their shopping, that
prices are soaring, everywhere and in highly worrying
proportions, particularly for everyday goods and
essential items.
16/01/2002
more impossible. So this is the vicious circle in which
the euro zone countries will struggle over the coming
years.
You could also say that it is a race against time. For the
euro to work, either those who oversee it will fairly soon
manage to pull apart the nations and build the superState – and then the euro can survive, but what state will
Europe and democracy be in? – or the nations, simply
because of their differences, will make it impossible to
manage the single currency. As for us, it is clear what
we prefer, Mr President, out of an affection for our
homelands and because of our belief in the fundamental
need for a national framework for democracy and
solidarity.
This is perhaps not quite the same as the Ruhr of the
1920s but this is similar to what happened in the 1970s.
January’s price index may be saved by the sales but let
us wait for the figures for the whole year. Let us also
wait for the first anti-social effects of competition, which
the euro will have on salaries, relocations and
redundancies, to be felt. Therefore, in the name of the
right of nations to self-determination, we would like to
affirm the right of nations to bring back their national
currency, in the same way that the former Soviet states,
when freed from the yoke of Soviet federalism, brought
back theirs.
Is there not a third option, however, that of a single
currency without a State? This could appeal to us, but no
one actually knows how it would work if confronted
with asymmetric shocks. Furthermore, the markets
themselves do not believe in it, as proven by the
persistent weakness of the euro in recent days.
3-134
3-135
Berthu (NI). – (FR) Mr President, President Prodi told
us this morning that the introduction of euro notes and
coins was a huge success. And several Members have
gone even further by speaking of the enthusiasm of
consumers, who appear to have embraced the new
currency.
Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the launch of the
notes and coins has finally made the euro a political
reality for the 300 million people of Euroland. Coming
from a country which is out, and a party which opposes
joining, I was half expecting more glitches and popular
resentment at the imposition of an unfamiliar currency.
So far so good, with little inflationary rounding-up. I
congratulate the ECB, the Commission and the national
central banks on their handling of the logistics of this
massive undertaking without any upsurge in armed
robbery or counterfeiting, although I still question the
need for a EUR 500 note which can only facilitate
criminality.
In our view, these comments are excessive. It is true that
the changeover to euro notes and coins was well
executed, technically speaking, but the consumers had
no other choice than, sooner or later, to use the new
money. The real test will be that of managing the euro in
the years to come. And, in this respect, if I were a
federalist, I would not be pleased. I would be rather
concerned, because, today, the people who occupy a
very difference position to us on the political stage, such
as Jacques Delors, are saying exactly what we have
always said, namely that the euro cannot function as it
is. We should speed up integration, as Mr Prodi said. We
should strengthen the economic pillar or move towards a
political Europe, as other Members are saying. In short,
we need more supranational power to integrate at
European level; in other words, that Europe is turned
into more of a super-State.
There is the rub, Mr President. Is Europe prepared to
accept this super-State? No, it is not! First of all, the
nations of Europe are sufficiently diverse in every
respect that it is not possible to create an optimal
monetary zone. Some of our Members will certainly say
that a super-State with the power to ensure consistency
is all the more necessary. Yes, admittedly, it might be all
the more necessary, but at the same time, it is all the
The euro, then, is launching us into an adventure with
very serious political and financial consequences of
which the citizens were not warned in advance and
which they are not prepared to shoulder. It should really
be the people who invented the euro who are concerned.
The naturally cautious British Conservative position is
that, although the euro may be an added convenience to
travellers and improve price transparency in the single
market, it is undoubtedly intended primarily to bolster
pan-European identity as a stepping stone to further
political integration – something admitted to by
everybody bar Mr Blair and our Labour Government –
and to control not only of monetary policy, but also of
taxation.
The "one size fits all" monetary policy, as the
Commission's pessimistic 2001 economic report admits,
cannot be right for all of the countries all of the time
and, coupled with the fiscal restraints of the Stability and
Growth Pact, imposes severe destabilising problems and
a lack of flexibility on certain economies, as we have
already seen in the artificial boom scenario of Ireland.
The risks of an asymmetric shock developing will only
get bigger after enlargement as European labour markets
16/01/2002
remain unreformed and largely immobile. President
Prodi has admitted this inherent risk and the call will
come very shortly for a much bigger EU budget and
direct EU taxes to set up bail-out funds to compensate
affected countries for their loss of rights to devalue their
currencies or lower their interest rates. Nevertheless, I
wish the euro well as the currency of our major trading
partners, since UK prosperity is also affected by its
stability.
I hope that my pessimistic prognosis, which echoes that
of the Commission's own, proves to be wrong over time.
I would also like confirmation from Commissioner
Solbes that, in his opinion, for the UK to join the euro it
will have to spend at least two years locked into the
ERM II phase first before proceeding. Finally, I should
like to congratulate you, Mr President, on your election.
3-136
Solbes, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, first of all, I
should like to thank all the speakers for their comments.
I wish to begin by giving special thanks to Karl von
Wogau for his involvement in this process over the last
22 years. We are sorry to see him leave the Committee
on Economic and Monetary Affairs, but we know that
his skills will continue to help Parliament and the
process of European integration in the Committee of
Foreign Affairs.
Karl von Wogau said, in a reference to Jacques Delors,
that it is impossible to fall in love with the euro, and yet
Christa Randzio-Plath said that Europe’s citizens are
happy. Both comments might be linked to one
fundamental factor: the euro is the first aspect of
European identity to affect all citizens of the Member
States of the Monetary Union.
The euro is extremely important, as were the removal of
borders or the internal market, which, nevertheless, only
affect goods and citizens crossing the border at a given
time, but it is also a piece of our European identity,
which we use every day from morning till night, in all
the countries of the Monetary Union and exactly in the
same conditions. Because there are clearly also striking
differences between us, this aspect, out of all our
common aspects, must be highlighted as a very positive
one, as the others have nothing to do with any form of
unification.
From now on, the euro will give us notes and coins and a
slight increase in economic growth, as a consequence of
uncertainties being eliminated. It is true, however, and I
am in agreement on this with some of the speakers, that
the fundamental elements will emerge as a result of our
potential capacity for growth or, to put it another way, as
a result of implementing the Lisbon process in a more
ambitious way than we have done so far.
We will be able to break free from the United States, as
Mr Ruffolo suggests we would want to do. Nevertheless,
experience and the year 2001 have shown us that being
relatively independent in terms of trade does not protect
47
us from the effects of a crisis in the United States as a
consequence of the course which takes place due to the
economic effects arising from the relationships between
companies and between financial markets.
The exchange rate will be the real test of the euro. I have
always said that the exchange rate was never an
objective of the Union’s policy. Our objective for
monetary policy is to maintain low inflation and we are
convinced that a currency with low inflation is, in the
long term, a stable currency, a popular currency, a
currency that will provide refuge and is a currency that
will have an important role to play in the economic
world.
Apart from the purely economic aspects, however, what
is happening with our institutional structure? Is the euro
the beginning of economic government? I would say that
the model we put together in Maastricht was based on a
single monetary policy and on coordinated national
economic policies. This is our model. And we have to
work on ensuring that the euro is a success on this basis.
I am not going to prejudge whether we should make
more or less progress in the processes of political
integration. It could be done according to the wishes of
those that favour greater political integration, but I also
realise that this is a decision to be taken by the fifteen
Member States in other bodies, in other forums and
following a different debate. Nevertheless, I am
convinced that we can move ahead with the process of
greater coordination between economic policies, which
certainly does not mean the unification of our economic
policies, because our situations are different and,
consequently, policies must be applied consistently.
Today, like so often before, we have tended to confuse
stability pacts with economic policy guidelines. Is the
Stability Pact the problem for the Union’s economic
policy? This is something we have discussed on more
than one occasion in this House. I repeat what I have
always said: the Stability Pact is nothing more and
nothing less than a necessary factor which allows us to
maintain a policy mix between budgetary policy and
monetary policy, which facilitates a monetary policy
with low rates of interest. Structural changes to our
economies and the move towards growth, coherence
between our national economic policies and Union
policy as a whole with monetary policy must be
managed by means of these broad economic policy
guidelines. We have the necessary instruments; we have
to perfect and improve them, but I think that the system
is a good one. The policy mix will be one of the key
elements of the Spanish Presidency, as the chairman of
Ecofin stressed and I am sure we will have the
opportunity in this House to debate this fundamental
point. Of course, the structural reforms, as I said earlier,
are still the key to the future.
I wish to make a comment on enlargement of the euro
zone. We have noted greater interest in the ‘pre-in’
countries in what is happening in our experience in the
euro zone. Or rather, I would say that in the three ‘prein’ countries, considerable further interest has been
48
aroused, which is reflected in some political attitudes
that have been communicated or which we have seen in
recent days. Admittedly, there are still some who
criticise the euro and what some people in the
Eurosceptic world are afraid of, since the short term
problems have not occurred, is what will happen in ten
or fifteen years’ time. Obviously, there is nothing we can
say on this point. It is difficult to control what will
happen in ten or fifteen years’ time, but I personally am
convinced that by then we will have far fewer problems
than we do at the moment in this regard.
What conditions will be imposed on the ‘pre-in’
countries in order for them to join the Union? Exactly
the same as those imposed on the other countries, no
more and no less. Compliance with the Maastricht
criteria, with the additional factor of the opt-out clause
to which Denmark and the United Kingdom have the
right. There will be no change either for the ‘pre-in’ or
for the candidate countries. We take the view that the
equal treatment of all Member States of the Union is a
fundamental principle, which we should not alter under
any circumstances.
A last comment on an issue that might be a minor one
but which is, to a certain extent, the issue that has
concerned us today: the practical problems involved in
the introduction of the euro. Have businesses played the
role of the bankers? No, they have not. Through the
system of frontloading, businesses have acted as an
incentive for the rapid take-up of the single currency. It
is true that some practical problems have occurred, due
more to pressure by some citizens to use businesses as a
bank, when they have tried to change high
denominations of national currency in businesses and
not in the banks, as should have been predicted.
Have there been serious problems of counterfeiting?
There have been neither serious nor less serious
problems in this area. So far, we have not seen
counterfeits that could technically be called ‘counterfeit
euros’. There have been photocopies. There have been
euros produced with scanners, but which are enormously
different from the real euro and, consequently, these
concerns, which are occasionally expressed, should no
longer be an issue. The euro has an extremely high
security factor, unlike some of the world’s other national
high circulation currencies, and this should guarantee
that this type of situation is not going to occur.
I would also deny the truth of some of the assertions
made about the functioning of ATMs. There have indeed
been practical problems. Anyone who goes to automated
toll booths machines not far from here will see that some
machines do not work with the currencies of every
Union country. These are practical problems, whose
importance we should not exaggerate: they are merely
anecdotes within an enormously important and complex
process.
Nor do I feel that there are major pricing problems or
that prices in the sales will influence prices in January,
16/01/2002
as they have not done in the past, since they have never
been taken into account.
Last week, speaking with the former chairman of Ecofin,
Mr Reynders, we said that the clear lesson we have
learned from this process is that the next time we change
currency we must not do it on the first of January. But
since I am sure that this situation will not arise, I would
say that we have no need to worry about this problem
either.
Ladies and gentlemen, many thanks for your immense
cooperation during this period. It has been crucial to
helping the good work of the Member States, to ensuring
that the public has been better informed and also to
providing encouragement for the Commission’s work.
3-137
President. – The debate is closed.
3-138
Procurement
3-139
President. – The next item is the joint debate on the
following:
- Report (A5-0378/2001) by Zappalà, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on
the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the coordination of procedures for
the award of public supply contracts, public service
contracts and public works contracts (COM(2000) 275 –
C5-0367/2000 – 2000/0115(COD)) and
- Report (A5-0379/2001) by Zappalà, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on
the proposal for a European Parliament and Council
directive coordinating the procurement procedures of
entities operating in the water, energy and transport
sectors (COM(2000) 276 – C5-0368/2000 –
2000/0117(COD)).
3-140
Zappalà (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, I
would like to start by congratulating you on your
election to the presidency of this House and I wish you
and the entire House a successful two and a half years.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the time has come
to vote on the directive on public supply contracts,
public service contracts and public works contracts and
the directive on specific sectors – entities operating in
the water, energy and transport sectors – in plenary. The
Commission worked on them for four years, conducting
a series of hearings, studies and assessments. Then
Parliament worked on them for a further two years. A
very well-attended public hearing took place and the
Committee of the Regions, trade associations and
professionals from all over Europe were also consulted.
16/01/2002
The fact that such a huge amount of work has been
necessary should not surprise us, considering that public
works contracts take up around 15% of the Union’s total
GDP, that is over EUR 1 500 billion. It is estimated that
only 20% of that sum is actually covered by the
provisions of the current directives in that the threshold
above which it is mandatory to apply them is relatively
high and, in any case, more or less equal to that laid
down in the agreements for the participation of third
countries. The current directives are now outdated and
therefore need revising and bringing into line with new
technologies and new market trends. It was precisely the
need to increasingly develop the internal market which
prompted the Commission to research and propose the
directives in question. The subject is of considerable
importance and could not and still must not be treated
lightly. In addition to individual Members, four
Parliamentary committees delivering opinions and the
committee responsible – the Committee on Legal Affairs
and the Internal Market – examined the texts and tabled
amendments: almost more than half this House has been
able to examine, debate and amend the texts.
It is a simple matter to summarise the contents: they
revise and modernise the current directives, they
introduce electronic auctions; they clarify the standards
on technical specifications, they define rules on award
criteria, they simplify the thresholds and they introduce a
Common Procurement Vocabulary.
Overall, the proposals deserve our support and, indeed,
have it: we are all aware of how important they are and
we all want their path to be smooth. However, the most
significant past and present problems which have
emerged and which are the subject of debate within the
different political groupings, and between the groupings
and between national representatives need to be
highlighted.
The thresholds, or the value below which the directives
are not binding. This value, which – as I have said – is
already relatively high, corresponds, however, to the
value laid down in the agreements with third countries,
in line with the Commission’s proposal. It has been
proposed to increase this value. That would raise two
problems: it would reduce the number of work contracts
required to comply with the directives, possibly to the
advantage of third countries whose existing contracts
cannot be reviewed. It would also allow contracting
authorities to operate outside the common rules, with the
associated risks. However, it has been maintained that,
even if the thresholds are raised, the number of contracts
awarded to European tenderers will not decrease
because, below a certain value, it is not economically
beneficial for businesses to operate away from their
region, still less their country. A further consideration is
the possibility that each Member State and each regional
government could apply local rules where the threshold
is not reached. That would mean that the higher the
thresholds, the greater the disparities between legislation
within the Union. Thus, the rules within the Union
would become even less uniform.
49
In my opinion, whatever the thresholds, we must not
allow there to be differing legislation within the Union.
That would shrink, rather than expand the common
market; it would also make it possible for individual
territorial legislative authorities to restrict access in their
regional or national territory purely to local operators.
This should only happen where the matter is not
regulated by the directives. Thus, the general contents of
the directives must be included in national or regional
legislation as well, and an amendment has been tabled
proposing this.
Another major issue is environmental and social
concerns. It has been proposed that the directive should
incorporate specific rules governing these areas. This
suggestion has prompted broad, far-reaching debate and
could lead to the report being referred back to committee
if a position supported by a sufficient majority is not
achieved at the vote. I feel that a law intended to further
the internal market’s development in an economic sector
and increase competitiveness cannot introduce principles
which are not already laid down by the sector’s
legislation. The Commission’s proposal contains
sufficient provisions as it is to ensure that all the
principles in force on the environment and workers’
rights are respected in the drawing up of calls for tender.
This legislation cannot be expanded or altered by means
of directives whose scope should be limited to works,
supply and service contracts. The related amendments,
adopted, moreover, at the vote by a number of
committees delivering opinions and by the committee
responsible, seek to introduce new rules. Were these
amendments also to be adopted in plenary, I feel that it
would be better to keep the current texts unaltered rather
than to have texts which, although more up-to-date,
could well mean a step backwards in basic areas.
There is a further issue which these texts cannot
disregard but which the Commission has failed to deal
with adequately: intellectual services. The time has
come to make a clear distinction between intellectual
services and executive services, between design and
execution. This is a difficult concept for certain trade
associations to take on board: as they see it, they are
defending
long-established
positions.
However,
intellectual activity cannot be considered to be the same
as manufacturing something and a company cannot do
everything. It cannot carry out both design and
execution, except in exceptional cases or where specific
technologies are involved. There are two of reasons for
this: works of art are not quantifiable: no two ideas are
alike. The history of Europe as a whole, give or take a
century, is full of different kinds of works which have
survived the passage of time because of their artistic
value. Not everything, not every service can be
compared to a work of art, but the products of the mind
cannot be confused with mere execution. An executing
company possesses skills and experience and executive
technology and is therefore the most suitable company
to design and implement others’ ideas on a technical
level, but that is all, with a few rare exceptions. By
separating intellectual services from executive services
we will be according the professions and the products of
50
the mind their due value. Joint contract awards, where
contracts for executive design alone and execution are
awarded together, are appropriate if there are intellectual
service providers qualified as such according to the
prevailing legislation in the company or attached to it.
These considerations are the basis both for the
amendment which makes it possible to award contracts
for the design and execution of works either separately
or together but requires justification to be produced
where mixed contracts are awarded, and for the
amendment which clearly defines what is meant by
preliminary project paper, final project paper and
executive project paper.
Lastly, Mr President, two directives are before
Parliament which are essentially similar in that certain
specific sectors have been liberalised or will be in the
not-too-distant future. Telecommunications are already
considered to have been liberalised and are therefore not
being taken into consideration. The gradual liberalisation
of the water, energy and transport sectors, monitored
directly by the Commission or, upon request, by the
individual States, will allow the second directive to
expire without making it necessary to amend the first
directive.
Overall, I hope that objective considerations will prompt
us to adopt provisions which are specific to the sectors
without expanding on them dangerously, provisions
which will increasingly further the development of the
internal market, which take into account the forthcoming
accession to the Union of other countries which have
their own traditions and needs, and which will make our
rules increasingly uniform rather than fragmented.
16/01/2002
Looked at in terms of actual figures, 15% of the EU's
GDP of about EUR 900 billion per annum amounts to
EUR 125 to EUR 130 billion, not a small sum by any
means. In this very area of public contracting, though,
the internal market has not yet prevailed to any
particular degree. There is a need for change to be
brought about here. The award of contracts across
frontiers is still the exception. Regulations are complex,
muddled, rigid, cumbersome and bureaucratic, and the
integration of social concerns and environmental issues
into procurement practice has not yet been clarified
either. Those, at any rate, are the challenges Parliament
itself enumerated in its debates on the Green Paper and
the communication from the Commission in 1996 and
1998. It is for that reason that we must now focus on the
economic objectives and those related to competition
policy. Our aim is also to help bring the Internal Market
to fruition in this area. There is a need for clear,
transparent rules that do not discriminate against anyone
tendering for these contracts.
On the other hand, though, there must also be the
guarantee that nobody tendering for a contract can gain
unjustifiable advantages for himself. It must therefore be
made clear that standards must be adhered to as laid
down by the law on labour, pricing and the environment.
It is for that reason that Mr Zappalà is not quite correct
when he argues in his final remarks that the economic
aspects should be separated from the others. You cannot,
of course, evade the other standards in order to gain an
economic advantage. That is one of the ground rules that
we all share, and it must also be obeyed.
3-142
3-141
Hughes (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the
Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr
President, the Committee on Employment and Social
Affairs has long argued for greater consideration of
social and employment standards in public procurement
in two ways. The first is by ensuring that current legal
provisions are complied with by all tenderers so as to
avoid any unfair competition. I would ask Members to
bear that in mind in the light of what the rapporteur said
in his introductory remarks. We need to note in this
respect that it is not a matter of social criteria – putting a
question mark over the objective nature of the
procurement process – but the very opposite: what
matters is to create a level playing field for all those
taking part in a procurement procedure.
Rapkay (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (DE)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me take a look at
the economic and competitive aspects of public
tendering from the point of view of the Committee on
Economic and Monetary Affairs. Mr Zappalà has just
referred to the fact that, according to the Commission's
estimate at any rate, 14% to 15% of the EU's GDP is
accounted for by building and supply contracts and
contracts to provide services, all granted by the State or
by enterprises whose function is to provide services for
the general public.
The second way in which we want social criteria to be
taken into account is by enabling contracting authorities
to pursue certain social and employment objectives, such
as equal opportunities and social inclusion in connection
with procurement. But this is always – again I would
stress this in the light of what the rapporteur has said –
subject to the strict requirement that it does not distort
competition. This is made plain repeatedly in the
amendments by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the
Internal Market, that were in turn inspired by the opinion
of the Committee on Employment.
Furthermore, I feel we ought to acknowledge that the
work carried out by the Commission in its proposal
deserves our greatest appreciation.
Lastly, I have to say that I am proud to have helped to
develop and, I hope, improve legislation which both
contributes to the building of a more united, stronger
Europe and also curbs the fraud and malpractice which
very often prevail in economics. Precisely in order to
prevent loopholes, it is better for the directives to suffer
a setback, should this prove necessary, than to have rules
which are too loose.
16/01/2002
The opinion of the Committee on Employment looked at
the different stages of the tendering process and made a
number of recommendations for each of those stages. At
the first stage, the need for the inclusion of a reference to
the law applicable should become a component of the
contract documentation. Candidates, tenderers in a
procedure, should have access to all the information on
all social and employment criteria that they should be
taking into account.
Article 27 is particularly important in the general
directive in that respect. I would draw Members'
attention to Amendment No 129 by Mrs Berger. It is an
excellent amendment, which I hope will be supported by
the House.
At the second stage we need to ensure that we have
proper compliance with the standards laid down in the
first stage and there should be a possibility to exclude
people who have not toed the line in the past in relation
to those social and employment standards. Article 46 is
particularly important in that respect and I would draw
Members' attention to Amendments Nos 82, 86, 87 and
89.
During the selection of candidates and the award of the
contract, we need to ensure compliance with legal
provisions relating to employment protection and
working conditions. That is Article 53, which has
attracted most attention in the discussions inside the
Committee on Legal Affairs. I would draw Members'
attention in that respect to Amendments Nos 134 and
140. I sincerely hope we can reach agreement on one of
those amendments in our vote tomorrow.
Finally, there needs to be an adequate review procedure
to ensure that these criteria are applied in the execution
of the contract. Amendment No 108, among others, is
important in that respect.
I would draw attention to one final amendment, which is
important. It was highlighted in the opinion of the
Committee on Employment and relates to sheltered
employment. Amendment No 36 gives Member States
the possibility to reserve certain contracts for sheltered
employment schemes or sheltered workshops where the
majority of workers in those schemes or workshops are
people with disabilities. This is a longstanding issue in
some Member States, in particular my own. I hope this
amendment can be adopted tomorrow and we get a clear
reference to this in the directive for the future.
That is the main gist of the opinion of the Committee on
Employment. These concerns are all reflected in the
amendments to be considered tomorrow. I hope they will
command the support of the House.
3-143
Schörling (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and
Consumer Policy.  (SV) Mr President, the environment
can of course be protected in a number of ways. Here in
the European Parliament, we try to do this in mainly two
51
ways. Either we try, by means of directives and
regulations, to ban or limit environmentally damaging
activities; or we try, by means of directives and
regulations, to encourage private individuals, companies
and public authorities voluntarily to act in ways that
reduce damage to the environment.
I should like to say to Mr Zappalà that the time is quite
simply past when purely economic criteria could be
considered and that the EC Treaty now in actual fact
obliges us to take account of social and environmental,
as well as economic, factors. The two draft procurement
directives must therefore make it possible for local
authorities, county councils and state authorities to
procure goods and services in such a way that there are
minimal strains upon the environment.
I think the Commission’s proposal is odd in as much as
it makes environmentally friendly procurement of this
kind impossible. In the two opinions for which I have
been draftsman in the Committee on the Environment,
Public Health and Consumer Policy, we have clearly
incorporated the opportunity for taking account of the
environment in procurement. These opinions were
adopted in their entirety without any changes
whatsoever, meaning that there had been a very strong
and clear input from the Committee on the Environment.
I have also been glad to note that the majority of the
amendments by the Committee on the Environment have
been adopted by the committee responsible.
There are nonetheless a couple of points on which the
committee responsible has arrived at odd results. This is
above all the case with the proposal for a directive on the
coordination of procedures for the award of public
supply contracts, public service contracts and public
works contracts. Article 53 of this has to be changed so
that it is significantly easier to take account of the
environment in awarding contracts. In the second
directive of the two – namely the proposal for a directive
coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
operating in the water, energy and transport sectors –the
same change is not, however, made to Article 54, which
is of course identical to Article 53 in the directive first
referred to. I presume this is an oversight, but I want in
any case to draw attention to this and call upon everyone
to vote in favour of Amendment No 140 to the report on
the award of public supply contracts, public service
contracts and public works contracts.
These changes are significant. The two directives ought,
as I said, to tally with one another. If the wording, ‘the
most economically advantageous tender for the
contracting authorities’ remains in place, it means that
the contracting authorities do not need to take account of
the environment or of life cycles and the interests of
society in a broader perspective. It is therefore very
important that we should in actual fact change this
wording so that it agrees with that in the proposal for a
directive on the coordination of procedures for the award
of public supply contracts, public service contracts and
public works contracts.
52
These criteria do in fact form part of the Sixth
Environment Programme. They form part of the
integrated product policy, and the rules must also of
course promote, among many other things, sustainable
development in accordance with the Treaty of
Amsterdam. I cannot fathom the incomprehensible
impairment of the existing directive by the Commission,
which believes that adopting, for example, a life cycle
perspective as an evaluation criterion is not permitted.
However, this issue has been subject to legal
proceedings . The Advocate-General has clearly come
out in favour of its being my and the Committee on the
Environment’s view that is correct, and not that put
forward by the Commission.
I am also extremely pleased about the changes made by
the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
because sustainable development involves having to take
account of economic, social and environmental criteria. I
therefore hope that we shall vote in favour of the
amendments tabled by the Group of the Greens and the
Group of the Party of European Socialists.
3-144
Kuhne (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the
Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and
Energy. – (DE) Mr President, I too would like to start by
saying something about the question of whether
economic legislation is in some way neutral and capable
of being separated from other aspects. We have an
example in the field of the so-called Utilities Directive
where legislation can achieve widely different effects
whilst appearing to be neutral. If we say that the
Directive applies to operations in municipal hands but
not to those that are contracted out, we have then made
enterprises with the same purpose subject to completely
different legal regulations, and the effects are not
neutral.
It was for this reason that a large and cross-party
majority of the Committee on Industry, External Trade,
Research and Energy, which does not otherwise have a
reputation for particular concern for social and
environmental matters, was prepared to take up these
aspects in its proposals. I would like to take this
opportunity to describe some of them clearly, as we did
not just have discussions, but also incorporated into the
present proposal significant results from the Industry
Committee and also the Committee on Employment and
Social Affairs, the Committee on the Environment,
Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee
on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
Our most important proposal is that, in addition to the
provisions of social security and labour law, collective
agreements between employers and trade unions – as our
proposal still terms them – should also be adhered to at
the place of performance. I believe that the Industry
Committee, in order to exclude the possibility of
misunderstandings, might also find the formulation
"generalised
collective
agreements"
acceptable,
especially as the proposal by the Committee on Legal
16/01/2002
Affairs and the Internal Market opens the door to other
misunderstandings.
We must in any case make one thing clear, and I say this
with reference to the Member State from which I come.
We cannot have elements of the political spectrum there
fomenting fears for the labour market on the grounds of
the forthcoming eastward enlargement, while some of us
in this House are engaged in opening the doors and thus
possibly justifying their fears. We must not leave
ourselves open to that reproach.
I also welcome the Committee on Legal Affairs and the
Internal Market’s acceptance of our demand that
enterprises be liable to exclusion from the tendering
procedure if they fail to comply with the provisions of
the law on tariffs and other social security and labour
law in the State of establishment or another affected
country. We have incorporated in the Utilities Directive
and in the draft under consideration today two important
items of potential significance to municipal enterprises,
one stating that associated or joint companies with at
least a 50% average share in turnover shall be excluded
from the scope of the Directive. That is in the text as
well.
The other states that the supply of energy and fuel shall
be excluded from the scope of this Directive, thus
maintaining the current status quo against the
background of the varying states of liberalisation
prevailing in the European Union, and avoiding the
situation I described at the beginning of my speech in
which operations belonging to municipalities are treated
differently from contracted-out enterprises. We are also
in favour of postal services being covered by this
Directive – not all kinds of postal service though, but
only those for which there is as yet no free competition.
If my observation on the subject of tariffs is also
included in the final vote, and if the points on which I
have enlarged are taken into account, then that is a result
with which I think the Industry Committee will be very
satisfied.
3-145
Jonckheer (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of
the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. –
(FR) Mr President, I would like to comment on the
second proposal for a directive and I shall also take this
opportunity to congratulate you on your election.
I would like to inform the House that the Committee on
Economic and Monetary Affairs unanimously adopted
the opinion for which I am rapporteur on 12 June 2001.
This unanimous vote is important, in that the Committee
on Economic and Monetary Affairs fully acknowledged
that the procedures on public contracts were instruments
falling under the sustainable development strategy and
that the environment should be integrated across all the
European Union’s policies, as advocated by the Treaty.
Within this framework, the relevant authorities, which
have political responsibility, must be permitted to draw
16/01/2002
up environmental as well as social criteria that they
intend to use in awarding public contracts, whilst, of
course, respecting the principle of non-discrimination.
To avoid repeating what other speakers have already
said, I would like to draw attention to two points. The
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs proposed
simplifying the award procedures, firstly by doubling the
thresholds above which the directive applies for public
contracts and, secondly, it is also proposing to give
special protection to small and medium-sized companies
by stipulating that the contracting authorities have the
power to decide that 15% of the total number of
contracts that they award can be granted to small and
medium-sized firms.
3-146
Lehne (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and
gentlemen, we are no doubt of the fundamental opinion
that environmental and social security policy matters
should actually be governed by environmental and social
security law respectively. There are, though, exceptions
to every rule. Not, of course, being unacquainted with
the ways of the world, we are aware that we cannot carry
on this debate on these new proposals by the
Commission for a directive on the award of public
contracts without taking their social and environmental
aspects into account to some degree. It is therefore quite
clear to us that social and environmental considerations
of course play a part in this decision, but we are making
a very clear distinction. We are of the opinion that, in the
European internal market, the conditions for all who
participate in this Internal Market should be equal. The
key phrase ‘level playing field’ was mentioned by an
earlier speaker.
Such a ‘level playing field’ is of course guaranteed only
when the criteria we are trying to add on alongside the
economic criteria are already a component part of the
tendering conditions and are not introduced or
implemented only later, when the tendering process has
been completed and discussion has moved on to the
award. This has been the reason why, in the debate so
far, the Group of the European People's Party/European
Democrats has always taken the view that, in so far as
such criteria are also to be taken into account, they
should be so under the heading of the tendering
conditions and not left to be dealt with when the contract
is awarded. I would therefore like to make it clear that
Article 53, which was constantly being addressed and
represented one of the main points of discussion and
dispute, refers to the award. That is why the Group of
the European People's Party/European Democrats will
take a restrictive approach when the amendments to
Article 53 are voted on. We want Article 53, as proposed
by the Commission, amended as little as possible. Only
then can we guarantee that the possibility of
manipulation does not eventually arise, with the
authorities that invite the tenders ending up able to use,
as it were, criteria introduced into the discussion
retrospectively to come to decisions that have quite
different backgrounds from those under discussion here
and which are informed by objective criteria.
53
I see this as a quite crucial difference, one that needs to
be brought out in the Committee on Legal Affairs and
the Internal Market and that has perhaps not yet become
completely clear in the Groups.
If I may say just one thing more, we are also opposed to
incorporating conditions in the Directive that will in fact
end up bringing the internal market to a standstill and
causing it to fail, just as we are opposed to leaving those
who will later transpose the Directive into national
legislation free to include such conditions. For example,
in Germany, my homeland, a so-called ‘tariff fidelity
law’ is under discussion, which will in fact – and I share
Mr Kuhne's view on this – mean that tendering will not
be on the basis of the generalised collective agreements
– which are like laws that one must obey – but rather on
the basis of tariff agreements, ranging from regional
down to in-house, a condition that will make it possible
to put a contract out to tender in such a way that only
one enterprise ends up being able to participate in the
process. That smashes the Internal Market to bits. Such a
thing is an absurdity, and one we are not prepared to go
along with. We will therefore vote against such a
possibility’s being opened up by means of amendments.
It is, however, very much my view that what Mr Kuhne
said on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External
Trade, Research and Energy, namely that there should
be no going beyond what is generally binding, is
something that could certainly meet with support from
me or from the Group I belong to.
My Group has not yet come to a final decision on the
threshold values. We will be doing that in our group
meeting before the vote, as there are differing views
among us on the subject. I would, though, like to point
out that Mr Zappalà has made a very interesting
proposal. I refer to Amendment No 147 which is by way
of a compromise in the event of an increase in the
threshold values being decided on and is designed to
ensure that the fundamental principles of this Directive
apply to all contracts awarded under this threshold as
well.
One could say at this point that this goes without saying,
but the proposal includes a significant innovation, which
I think would be a real step forward for the internal
market – the justiciability of what we are doing here, and
the justiciability of the tendering procedure. That is at
present not guaranteed in all the Member States under
the threshold. I believe that, if this were to be possible, it
would represent real progress. In particular, I ask the
Commission to reconsider their attitude towards
Amendment No 147 and to inform Parliament tomorrow
of whether they might give this Amendment their
approval, because I think this could be a genuine
compromise on the issue of threshold values.
Finally, I would like to thank most warmly the
rapporteurs, principally Mr Zappalà. This is one of this
House's most problematic legislative proposals, and you
have so far piloted us through its depths and shallows
very well. For that you have my gratitude.
54
3-147
Berger (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, let me also
congratulate you on your election.
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to
start by congratulating the rapporteur on behalf of my
group and thanking him and all the draftsmen of the
consulting committees' opinions for the enormous work
involved in this report.
We have already been occupying ourselves for a long
time with these two draft Directives from the
Commission, a good year and a half in fact. We had a
public hearing on this subject a year ago. I think the
intensive discussions and the highly laborious vote in the
Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market
make it high time that we complete the first reading with
the plenary vote tomorrow – which I hope will actually
take place.
The many amendments that we have had to deal with in
Committee and, to some extent, still have to deal with in
tomorrow's plenary session, do not mean that we were
not in agreement with the Commission's basic premises.
The consolidation of the previous Directives, and their
harmonisation and modernisation, is certainly a very
important step. As far as my group is concerned, in
addition to a number of other important topics, some of
which have already been addressed, there is a central
issue on which we cannot agree with the Commission. I
refer to the new criteria for the awarding of contracts,
where the Commission is attempting very substantial
changes in content in comparison with the former legal
position, and what it is consolidating is not only current
legislation.
The Commission's proposal dramatically restricts the
room for manoeuvre which was formerly provided for
and which is still current law, and does so above all at
the expense of qualitative criteria, notably those to do
with social security, the environment and health.
In its two interpretative statements, the Commission has
itself shown how this room for manoeuvre and
rearrangement can today be used without discrimination.
The European Court of Justice, too, has handed down a
very good and reliable interpretation of current law in
indicative orders and particularly now in the final plea in
the Helsinki case. The Commission appears to find the
current legal position unacceptable for political reasons,
and it is therefore to undergo massive alteration. A
number of Members will probably be very confused at
this point, as much of what the Commission thankfully
sets out in its two interpretative statements will, by
reason of the new legal position it has outlined, no
longer be feasible if we do not vote any amendments to
it tomorrow. Principals, such as municipalities for
example, may now only think, in purely egotistical
terms, of the immediate benefit to themselves. The
economic advantage must unambiguously be the
principal's. In Austria we call this the ‘Florian principle’
according to which it is better to let your neighbour's
house burn down than your own. It means that factors
16/01/2002
occurring to the detriment and cost of another local or
regional authority must no longer be taken into account
when awarding a contract. The Commission also wants
to prohibit the imposition of criteria relating to the
manufacture of a product. This makes illegal, for
example, an invitation to tender that specifies wood
products from sustainable forestry or foodstuffs that are
grown organically or derived from species-friendly
animal husbandry and represents discrimination against
conventional providers.
This not only undermines the objectives of the Treaty,
for example the integration of environmental protection
into all spheres of policy, and also a policy of
sustainable development, it also restricts the autonomy
and democracy of cities, municipalities, regions and
federal territories. We are then using EU law to prohibit
a democratically elected institution such as a city or a
municipality from deciding to introduce, or continue
with, an environmentally friendly purchasing policy. I
do not believe that this will enhance the European
Union's popularity among its citizens.
It is also, indeed, the perspective of Europe's cities and
municipalities that leads to a majority of our Group’s
advocating the raising of the threshold. Even in a small
community like my own, in a country in which the
climate means that building is very expensive, even the
mere building of a school goes above the threshold. The
costs of putting the work out to tender are significantly
greater. Yet this amount cannot be cut back because it is
still too low to attract tenders from other countries. It has
already been emphasised that the rules of the Internal
Market also apply below the threshold values.
I would like, in my concluding remarks, to appeal to the
Group of the European People’s Party and European
Democrats to change the position they adopted in
committee on tendering conditions, even if only on a
few points. We have brought in differing split votes on
my Amendments Nos 134 and 110. I think, then, that it
must be possible on this basis to further improve these
points in the Commission's text.
(Applause)
3-148
IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTIN
Vice-President
3-149
Thors (ELDR).  (SV) Mr President, it is good that we
are holding this debate at a busy time in the House and
that we are not just engaging in legal hair-splitting, for
the directives on the coordination of procedures for the
award of public contracts are among the most important
methods we have for preventing administrative
corruption in the most effective way. We are talking
about the most hated and most loved directives which
have consequences quite far afield in the national
administrations in various parts of the EU.
During the hearing in the committee, I and many others
besides me became concerned that so few cross-border
16/01/2002
offers are made. I think that the most important thing
today, following this debate and reading, is that we
obtain directives that operate as well as possible,
together with an important follow-up mechanism. There
is a lot left to be desired.
A lot has already been said about environmental issues,
but I think it is important for us to note that, on
environmental issues, we must give public authorities
the same opportunity we require the most progressive
companies to exercise. Why should it not be possible to
compete in this area within the public sector, just as it is
within the private sector?
The Commission says that as much value for money as
possible must be obtained. I want to say, however, that,
in this context, it is quite often a question of selfgoverning local authorities which operate in such a way
that, if a mistake is made and people are not satisfied,
the latter can replace the decision makers. The decisionmakers want to see good environmental decisions made
by their local authorities. I also think there is something
extremely seductive about the argument that, since we
have adopted directives on how, for example, we are to
promote the use of renewable energy, we should also
have procurement directives that encourage such use. It
is a familiar argument, but one worth mentioning. I share
the assessment which says that the Commission’s
approach in the proposal is rigid in relation to prevailing
legal practice.
There is, however, a difference between the
environmental and the ‘social’ issues. The basic
conditions we have when it comes to environmental
issues are relatively uniform, but we have extremely
different directives where social issues are concerned. It
is interesting to note that so many of those who have
talked about social issues come from Germany. I come
from a small EU country where my experience has
shown that, precisely with reference to ‘collective
agreements’, it has been extremely difficult for Finnish
companies to enter the German, and also the Swedish,
construction markets. That is why it is important for us
not to adopt provisions that are ambiguous. The basic
conditions are not uniform when it comes to social
issues. We do not know which regulations are to be
complied with in this area.
I still hope, however, to be able to send an important
signal on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal
and Democratic Reform Party, to the effect that if the
proposals for increased threshold values are adopted, we
shall not be able to support the proposals because, in our
view, they limit this area of application still more. We
have said in many contexts that we cannot support these
proposals because the whole purpose and whole issue
then become meaningless. That is why I want to appeal
to my fellow MEPs concerning this issue.
Finally, I wish to point out that the one compromise
amendment that has been tabled is not, in the light of
many countries’ practice, in actual fact a genuine
compromise amendment.
55
3-150
Hautala (Verts/ALE). – (FI) Mr President, I would like
to congratulate you on your election, by a large majority,
as Vice-President.
I shall describe a case which relates to these Directives,
and which concerns my home city of Helsinki. Some
time ago the Helsinki public transport corporation, being
the public procurement authority, put out to public
tender certain bus routes and set criteria stipulating inter
alia that the buses to be procured were to have the
lowest possible emissions; in other words, that they had
to be environmentally-friendly. And so the City of
Helsinki consequently opted to procure buses which run
on natural gas and whose emissions are very low.
A competing bidder was not satisfied with this, but
appealed to the national court, claiming inter alia that
the City of Helsinki had selected a bid which was not the
most advantageous one economically, in other words it
was not the cheapest. The advocate-general of the
European Court of Justice has recently issued his
opinion on this matter, which may be adopted as the
judgment of the Court. In fact the opinion of the
advocate-general supports very strongly the view of the
City of Helsinki that a public procurement authority
should have the right to set environmentally-friendly
criteria which it will use in its competitive tender, and
also to select products in compliance with this. It is
interesting that the position of the advocate-general is
precisely the same as that of the Commission's
Directorate-General
which
is
responsible
for
environmental matters, and different from that of the
Directorate-General which is responsible for the internal
market. Now I would also like to draw the attention of
Commissioner Bolkestein to this decision, which may
well in fact become final; we do not of course know this
as yet.
These Directives are of great economic significance: our
obligation is to enable the rules of the game to be as
transparent and straightforward as possible, and
competitive tenders to be as open as possible, and also to
ensure that public authorities are able to promote
solutions which are environmentally friendly and also
socially favourable.
To my esteemed and dear colleague Astrid Thors I
would like to say that of course social legislation is
different in the different countries, but perhaps this is the
precise reason why we should also permit a public
authority to comply with its own social criteria, and why
we should find sustainable compromises between the
political groups in these questions.
3-151
Ainardi (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr Vice-President, I
would also like to congratulate you on your election.
Like my fellow Members, who have underlined that this
was a report of titanic proportions, requiring a great deal
of work, I would like to use my two minutes’ speaking
time to try to put forward what I personally believe to be
the essential points, bearing in mind those involved,
56
particularly the local and regional authorities and the
citizens.
In my view, the Zappalà report, which was approved by
the Committee on Legal Affairs, improves on the
Commission’s original proposal for a directive. On the
pretext of simplifying and updating the existing
legislation, the Commission’s proposal does indeed
propose to make the regulations uniform, but the main
way, if not the only way, it achieves this is through
liberalisation and this is something I cannot accept.
Thus, when it comes to using prices as a criterion for
awarding contracts, the lowest price is favoured over
social and environmental criteria. I believe therefore, as
do other Members, that the stakes are very high. Given
their activity, public authorities should favour
employment and sustainable development but decisions
are instead based on financial criteria alone. However, in
March 2000, the European Trade Union Confederation
pointed out how much importance the Community
regime for public contracts placed upon the concept of
price, to the detriment of social and territorial cohesion,
equality and employment.
As I said, the Zappalà report improves on the
Commission’s directive, particularly by raising the
thresholds on opening up public procurement contracts
by 50% and also by taking into greater consideration the
social and environmental criteria. If adopted in its
current form, I think it might represent an improvement
on the current situation. Despite this, it is essentially the
approach of liberalisation that is favoured.
In a communication of 15 October 2001, the
Commission was forced to put forward the option of
integrating social and environmental aspects into
procedures for the award of public contracts. However,
this communication is not legally binding in character.
We must therefore go further and approach it in a
different way; this is the sense of the amendments tabled
by my group. Within the award criteria, employment, the
environment and town planning must be put on the same
footing as economic cost. Of course, my group’s vote
will depend on the outcome of the vote on the
committee’s amendments and also on the amendments
that will be proposed tomorrow.
3-152
Crowley (UEN). – Mr President, I too join my
colleagues in congratulating you on your re-election as
Vice-President. I also wish to congratulate the
rapporteur and all the draftsmen on their work on what
may appear to be a very simple topic but, when you get
into the detail and analysis of it, proves extremely
difficult. Rather than repeating what has been said
already, I would like to deal with three particular points.
Firstly, with regard to raising the limits on when tenders
have to be put out for consultation, looking for the 50%
increase is important because it has already been proven
that the present limits do not allow for greater crossborder interaction between companies and between
companies and agencies. This is because the contract
16/01/2002
limit is too small and the economic reality underlying
this is that to move your operation into another Member
State requires extra money and a more valuable contract
to make such a move profitable. There is no point in
saying that we should be spending public money merely
to prop up a failing or ageing system. We should be
using the money properly – of course to increase
infrastructure, to provide better services and to increase
local employment as much as possible – but it should
not be used merely as a substitute for private and other
investments or for other initiatives to create local
employment.
The
second
area,
concerning
environmental
considerations, is another very important question. It is
one in which each and every one of us would agree that
certain minimum standards have to be laid down. We
have to learn from the mistakes of the past and ensure
that we put in place proper controls and mechanisms to
guarantee that what we pass on to future generations is
in a better condition than that in which we received it.
However, that should not be used as an obstacle or a
block to development. There is a happy medium and a
balance between both, which must be maintained.
My third point concerns social obligations, and in
particular I agree fully with the Members who said that
there must be a social return for the contracting authority
and its area from the awarding of the contract. However,
it should not be used to prevent the contracts from going
ahead or as an extra bureaucratic layer to be put in place
to prevent the best possible price from being brought
forward.
My last point concerning the qualitative selection
criteria. Of course we must have protections in place to
ensure that those who are guilty of wrongdoing, fraud,
racketeering and of interfering with Community assets
and finances should be excluded from public contracts.
However, I have one concern with regard to the question
of a judgment that is not yet final: we are acting as judge
and jury in denying somebody a right to be an applicant
for a tender without having a final decision or analysis
made as to whether that person is guilty of a crime or
not. This is something we must be very careful of.
In conclusion, it is about time that these directives were
brought together, that the texts were clarified and that
greater certainty was put into the legislative framework
under which people have to operate. But, most
importantly of all, it must be seen as a move towards
guaranteeing better public services for all people.
3-153
van Dam (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, I should like to
congratulate you on your re-election as Vice-President
of this Parliament.
The Commission proposes to consolidate and modernise
the present procurement directives. This is with good
reason, for they are too complex and too bureaucratic for
contracting authorities and industry alike.
16/01/2002
Can we realise political ambitions via the public
procurement procedures? This question seems to be at
the heart of the long-term discussion on this topic. Via
Amendment No 98, this report wishes to add both social
and environmental criteria to the assessment of the most
favourable tenderer. Environmental criteria – a European
area of policy par excellence – can be measured
objectively by means of management standards and can
therefore easily be deployed in practice. However, we
believe that it would be taking matters too far to
prescribe at European level that national bodies must
take account of social criteria in their assessment. Social
policy is to be established nationally, and that is how it
should continue to be. Furthermore, this amendment
would make the procedure considerably more complex,
both for the contracting authorities and the tenderers. It
could lead to all kinds of new points of contention and
differences in interpretation. This is why the directive
would become just as difficult to implement as the
current one.
We wholeheartedly support the exclusion of economic
operators that have been convicted of offences. In my
country, there are currently various criminal cases
pending against building contractors, and it seems as if
fraud is becoming a widespread phenomenon. This text
drives the message home to industry: you do not mess
with public money.
3-154
Cederschiöld (PPE-DE).  (SV) Mr President, these
two directives are important when it comes to creating
an internal market that operates well. Procurement in the
EU accounts for EUR 1.5 billion per year, EUR 40
million of it in Sweden alone. The figures show the
importance of clear and simple ground rules.
Small and medium-sized enterprises must be able to
compete on equal terms. If the EU is to become the
world’s most competitive market by 2010, small and
medium-sized companies need to be given a boost and
the conditions under which they operate made easier for
them. It is important to maintain the threshold values in
order to obtain solutions that favour consumers and
stimulate competition. In that way, we can increase the
number of purchases and create the basic conditions for
a European procurement market. It would prevent
protectionist behaviour in national markets and –
something which is not to be sniffed at – make it easier
for politicians to be thrifty with people’s taxes.
Clear rules must also apply to environmental and social
considerations. The two directives we are debating today
are financial directives. If and when account is to be
taken of environmental and social factors, this should
happen when the procurement criteria are established. In
that way, the rules for those who submit offers will
become clear, and they will know what prior conditions
apply to procurement. It is the tenderer with the
financially most advantageous offer to whom the
contract must be awarded.
57
I also wish to agree completely with what Mrs Thors
said about her experience of small countries engaging
with the German market. I have the same experience
where my own country is concerned. Nonetheless, I also
want fully to acknowledge my country’s extreme
uncompetitiveness in the construction sphere, something
which also leads to our having high housing costs.
Our goal must be to raise the quality and reduce the
costs of cross-border procurement by simplifying it and
making it more efficient and widespread.
3-155
Gebhardt (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to
congratulate you on your election. Mr President,
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a lot of laws are
like our favourite clothes. If we do not look after them,
they rapidly become unsightly and end up being
unusable. They no longer fulfil their purpose. So it is
only a good thing that the Commission has taken in hand
the law on the award of public contracts, which dates
back to the Seventies, and that we are now engaged in
doing justice to the requirements of modern times and of
the Internal Market with two directives. A certain
amount has already been said about the modernisation of
the directives on the award of public contracts, and I do
not need to add anything to that. I would, though, like to
sound a clear warning that we may be improving the law
on the award of public contracts in technical terms and
making it more manageable, but at the same time
causing its substance to deteriorate. That is what the
Commission intends with its proposed text, in which the
smoothly functioning internal market and competition
sweep all before them. People's justifiable desires and
interests are neglected. That is something this Parliament
must not permit.
Our duty is not to any old mechanism or economic
ideology. Our duty is to the citizens of Europe and their
needs, and we are, moreover, obliged to see to it that
their taxes are not squandered. A well-functioning
internal market can help in this if it adheres to peoplefriendly standards. Public contracts cannot, then, simply
be awarded to the lowest bidder. Social requirements
must, as criteria, be no less decisive than consideration
for people's health and careful treatment of the
environment. That is why there are amendments tabled
by my group, and, in my view, if they are not adopted, it
will be impossible to vote for the Directive on the award
of public contracts. Let me give an example. It is, of
course, obvious that contractors must abide by
regulations on industrial safety and working conditions
as well as by all the other collective and individual
provisions of labour law. This also includes adherence to
the wage agreements in force where the principal is
located. Without that, we easily end up in a spiral of
discrimination and wages dumping at the expense of
many workers' families. Competition in the internal
market must not be allowed to be like that.
Competition must not be pursued at the expense of the
environment, and so it is perfectly clear that public
principals must require the maintenance of high
58
environmental standards. Let me close with a word on
the threshold values for European tendering. Since the
existing threshold values have demonstrably failed to
bring about any increase in cross-frontier exchange in
the sphere of public contracting, we need have no
qualms about raising them. Speaking personally, I have
no problem with the idea of doubling them. Raised
thresholds deter unjustifiably high expenditure on
smaller projects, promote greater flexibility in the
planning and realisation of manageable projects and
contribute to the careful use of money raised from tax.
The public will thank us if we do not oblige their mayors
to throw the money out of the window with both hands.
I would like to apologise to Mr Zappalà and also to the
Commissioner for the fact that I cannot stay to the end; a
party of visitors has been waiting for me since four
o'clock, and I really must get to them, although I would
actually have liked to stay to hear the Commissioner's
reply.
3-156
Wallis (ELDR). – Mr President, at the heart of this
debate is the theme of protecting the public interest in
contracts awarded by public authorities. It is also, in the
context of the internal market, about encouraging crossborder tendering and working: 15% of EU GDP – that is
an important input in achieving public policy aims. We
should be looking to achieve best value for our citizens
and a transparent process for those tendering. But best
value can never be based on purely financial criteria.
Price alone can never be a complete measure of what is
in the public interest, of what is the most advantageous
offer.
I remember, as the member of a local authority, seeing a
council waste time, effort and money trying to
unscramble a valuable school meals contract that proved
to be totally unsatisfactory. Yes, the price was right, but
only the lawyers won.
The goals pursued by public authorities are justifiably, in
the public interest, a mixture that includes environmental
and social goals. As long as the playing field is level and
the procedure is absolutely transparent, such goals and
choices can and should be valid, as the ECJ has recently
confirmed. Such choices, indeed, are a valid and
intrinsic part of local political life.
3-157
MacCormick (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, it is a
happy coincidence that you have taken the chair this
afternoon for it permits me to say with what pride it is
that I share with you a constituency under our present
electoral arrangements as a fellow Member for Scotland.
You have brought credit on our constituency in the
dignified and splendid way you have conducted yourself
over recent weeks and we are very pleased with that.
16/01/2002
Commission take that view. But, as Mrs Wallis has just
said, this debate focuses on the very question of what
decisions are properly taken by the public authorities, by
democratic procedures on the basis of public choice, and
what must then reasonably be left to the market to deal
with.
It is crucial for that dividing line to be got right. Mrs
Hautala asked a question which the Commissioner must
answer when replying to this debate today. It is a
question which can also be addressed to Mr Zappalà,
who says that we should only take economic conditions
into account, not, for example, environmental or social
ones. If Helsinki or Edinburgh became seriously
polluted with diesel fumes, that would give rise to costs.
Somebody would have to pay to clean them up
eventually. To say that is a non-economic cost is simply
an odd kind of economics. So we turn the thing round:
we ask who shall decide if the streets of Helsinki or the
streets of Edinburgh need environmentally friendly and
sustainable buses? Who can best take that decision? Is it
best taken in Brussels? Is it best taken in Strasbourg by
this Parliament? Is it best taken in London? No, it is best
taken in Edinburgh or in Helsinki.
We need a decision of that kind to be taken locally. Of
course, we do not want that decision to lead to unfair
consequences. It must be open and transparent. Who can
come and bid for this contract and on what terms can
they obtain it? That is fine, but do not exclude the local
authority, the people of a region, from saying themselves
what standards they demand of those who serve them. If
that is to be ruled out by European law, Europe will not
grow in popularity among its citizens. We must have this
kind of clear responsibility for the public good taken by
public authorities. I would like to hear the Commission's
reply to that point.
3-158
Cossutta (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr President, I welcome
the Commission’s proposal for a directive and the report
adopted by the Parliamentary Committee on Legal
Affairs and the Internal Market. However, we need
amendments that include social and environmental
requirements and equal treatment requirements in
procedures. The amendments I have tabled seek to
strengthen the role of awarding authorities in monitoring
the quality of the tenderers and I would stress the
importance of assessing the environmental impact of
public and private projects. I would also stress the need
to exclude from award procedures people condemned for
crimes such as money laundering, fraud and
racketeering. I want to emphasise this in this House too,
for I am sad to say that my country, Italy, is still troubled
by the Mafia and, contrary to what the Italian cabinet
minister, Mr Lunardi, said, complicity with the Mafia is
totally unacceptable.
3-159
(Applause)
In that constituency, as you well know, it is not taken for
granted that what is publicly provided or done is bad and
only what is privately done is good. Nor does the
Harbour (PPE-DE). – Mr President, may I too offer my
congratulations to you on your election as first VicePresident.
16/01/2002
I should like to provide a different perspective on the
debate this afternoon. In this debate we have not heard
from the people who are now supplying public
authorities across the European Union as a result of the
tremendous progress that has been made in opening up
public contracting all over the European Union.
So far we have heard nothing this afternoon about the
people who are driving the economy forward because
they are getting open access to tenders, cheaply and
readily available by electronic means. That applies to
businesses,
organisations,
service
providers,
manufacturers, contractors all over the European Union.
A few weeks ago I went to see one of those companies
in my constituency. It employs 80 people. Every
morning it logs on to the Official Journal. Five or six
tenders are listed there, all for the United Kingdom. This
company does not at the moment have export ambitions
but the Official Journal gives it cheap, ready access to
customers in public authorities to a standard format. It
fulfils and puts in tenders for them every week.
In this perspective I want to look at the balance between
economic, environmental and social issues. That
company in the Black Country in the United Kingdom
employs 80 people, that is 80 much-needed jobs, and it
complies with every single social requirement in United
Kingdom law. It complies with all the environmental
rules in United Kingdom law. It is perfectly entitled to
apply for a contract. Why should that be otherwise?
Why should it have to do anything else? This is
primarily an economic instrument. That is what it was
designed to be to begin with. We may want to add to its
social burdens – and plenty of colleagues over there
would like to do that. We will have many more debates
with Mrs Thorning-Schmidt and other colleagues about
adding to the requirements to improve the safety and
health of their workers. That is fine. If companies
comply with that, they should be entitled to apply for
contracts.
I want to pick up on Mr MacCormick's points, because
methinks he protests too much. On the question of the
Helsinki bus contract, surely it was up to the Helsinki
authorities to decide, before they put the contract out to
tender, what was the optimum and most environmentally
friendly bus that they wanted? It is not part of public
contract to require the bus manufacturers to do an
environmental appraisal for Helsinki before they then
submit the contract. If the Helsinki authorities had said
that they wanted 100 buses powered by natural gas and
that is the contract, then fine, if that is what they want to
do. But it should be done on an open and consistent
basis.
Finally, I want to turn to this question of thresholds. This
seems to be the most extraordinary debate. I particularly
refer to one of the opinions from EMAC, in which our
colleague, who unfortunately is not here, said he wanted
to simplify matters by raising thresholds but at the same
time he wanted to allocate 15% of contracts to SMEs.
Does he think that by removing a substantial number of
contracts from the public procurement regime, by raising
59
thresholds, he is going to improve the situation for
SMEs? What sort of world are we living in?
This is an area where we want SMEs to compete. We
want local authorities to put in contracts on a consistent
open basis that will give our citizens value for money.
We want to oblige them to do that. Just because they
find it difficult, because they think it costs them money –
probably because they do not want to comply with all
the requirements – they want more discretion to give
contracts not on an open basis. That is what raising this
public threshold is all about. We should not do it. It will
undermine the value of a system that is working well
already. That is what we should be looking at:
improvement, not destruction.
3-160
McCarthy (PSE). – Mr President, I too have companies
in my constituency that are benefiting from this public
procurement regime. Indeed they are benefiting from
providing euro slot machines for public authorities even
though Britain is not in the euro zone. There are lots of
opportunities here. But I want to direct some very
pertinent questions to the Commissioner and I hope he
will answer those questions in his response.
Commissioner, we need some clarification regarding
thresholds, as Mr Harbour has indicated. I would
genuinely like to know what would be the effect on the
public procurement market if thresholds were to be
increased, and particularly on small and medium-sized
enterprises and on consumers. I would also like to know,
as regards our international obligations under the WTO
general procurement agreement with third countries,
whether it would be the case, as has been established by
Commission services, that the US and Japan would
actually be favoured contractors and that our EU
suppliers would lose out because we would be operating
two distinctly different regimes.
I should like to raise questions on the social criteria.
Members have already stressed the compatibility of
incorporating strong social progress criteria in award
procedures while respecting the principles of
competition law and of equal treatment and nondiscrimination. It ought to be possible to combine
economic reform and competition policy with strong and
sound social justice and social progress principles. I
cannot understand why, if we have a system of
transparency and open competition, how we cannot
prevent that from being used as a protectionist smoke
screen in the publication of tenders. Why has the
Commission not incorporated the full force of good
practice from European case law into the body of this
directive to ensure that we guarantee the highest social
and economic standards in public procurement? Surely
we owe that to our public authorities, to our consumers
and indeed to our businesses. Why has the Commission
gone down the route of a voluntary approach?
I hope the Commission will accept the amendments
mentioned by my colleague, Mr Hughes, to allow for
reserve contracts for sheltered employment schemes. I
60
hope it will respect Parliament's wishes for a strong line
to be taken in this directive, ensuring compliance with
core labour standards and permitting the exclusion of
those in breach of those standards.
3-161
De Clercq (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, my warmest
congratulations on your election. Commissioner, ladies
and gentlemen, this report has far more impact than
would appear at first sight. Annually, thousands of
contracts are awarded by public, often regional or local,
governments. At the moment, public procurement is said
to account for approximately 14% of the entire European
GDP. However, existing legislation is too complicated
and complex, as a result of which, to date, this market
segment has been far too much hidden from the benefits
of the internal market.
The current report, therefore, cannot afford to miss its
target, namely the simplification of legislation and
greater opportunities for European procurement
procedures. For these reasons, inter alia, I am opposed
to raising the thresholds too high, as a result of which a
meagre 8 to 12% of all procurements in the European
Union would fall within the scope of this regulation. In
addition, the introduction of social and environmental
criteria must be handled with care. Too many conditions
that are too wordy once again make matters much more
difficult, both for our towns and municipalities and for
our SMEs. We must realise that they will bear the brunt
of this European legislation. We must bring them closer
to Europe and get them to spread the European message.
This is certainly not achieved by issuing an unhealthy
number of rules and regulations.
3-162
Wuermeling (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies
and gentlemen, my heartfelt thanks and respect are owed
to the rapporteur, who has drafted this material with
much energy, discipline and intelligence. I admire him
most of all for not losing his Roman cheerfulness despite
what was at times a very difficult process. Many thanks
also to my colleagues in the Committee on Legal Affairs
and the Internal Market, where we had what I think was
one of our most interesting debates to date.
The discussions in this House have also shown that
views on threshold values and social standards cut
across Group lines, and we can look forward to
tomorrow's vote with great excitement.
I see a requirement for the new Directives to be
progressive, fair and functional. We support the
modernisation proposed by the Commission, for
example with regard to the introduction of electronic
auctions and the electronic submission of tenders. What
greatly worries me, though, is that on one point the
Directive is not being made fairer. I am referring here to
the issue of social and environmental standards.
It is for the benefit of the other members of my group
that I would like to expressly reiterate that the issue is
not, for us, that social and environmental criteria have no
part to play in the procedure whereby contracts are
16/01/2002
awarded. No! Mr Hager has shown that very clearly.
These standards must be laid down in the description of
the product. We want to avoid the situation where, when
the contract is awarded at the end of the process and the
tenders have been compared and it is clear that tender
no. 1 is the best in economic terms, no. 2 is worse, no. 3
is even worse than that and no. 4 is the worst of all, there
is then another assessment which establishes that one
firm is more socially responsible because it employs
more disabled people and another more ecological
because it has a waste management system, whereupon
it is decided, despite the fact that there was another
tender which was better in economic terms, to award the
contract to the more expensive firm after all. That is the
situation we want to avoid, for it would run counter to
the internal market. That is why this is such an important
point for us, and a Directive with standards of that sort
would basically be no use to us anymore.
3-163
Koukiadis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, may I offer you
my congratulations and best wishes; I know that you will
continue to be as efficient as ever in the performance of
your duties.
The battle for social and environmental criteria, which
was won mainly thanks to the proposal of the Committee
on Economic and Monetary Affairs, proves that the
European Parliament still basically supports the
European social model and sustainable development,
which is the only way to make Europe competitive in a
global environment. The amendments to the social and
environmental criteria, which have to be evaluated in
tandem, do not impose any new obligations or costs on
companies; they merely state the obvious, i.e. that we
need to respect the acquis communautaire when it
comes to protecting work and the environment.
In the same vein, the position taken by the Committee on
Legal Affairs, to the effect that contracts could contain
terms to encourage the recruitment of minorities or
excluded persons and combat employment, should be
adopted unanimously. Now it has been agreed that
employment policy needs to be mainstreamed, adopting
this position would confirm that we believe and mean
what we say.
I am also encouraged by the new paragraph in Article 7
calling not just for a legal framework for protecting
work to be defined, but for it to be aligned with
Convention No. 94 of the International Labour
Organisation and the directive on the secondment of
employees. Meeting minimum labour standards in
international conventions is one of the fundamental
obligations of the developed countries in the European
Union.
Another question which we addressed was the question
of thresholds. I think that, in doing away with
thresholds, we really have warded off the danger of
excluding small and medium-sized enterprises from the
market, which is, of course, what would happen if they
had to compete, with the complex procedures in the
16/01/2002
directive, with large companies at Community level.
This amendment therefore helps employment and helps
companies to remain viable.
Finally, I call on the Commission to include other means
in procurement by electronic means, not just the
electronic auctions which are held on the market. By
which I mean certain models of public procurement,
such as electronic catalogues, electronic government
purchasing methods and a series of corresponding
electronic means used by companies.
3-164
Thorning-Schmidt (PSE). – (DA) Mr President,
procurement policy is a very important means of leading
social development in the direction of sustainability.
Local authorities and state organisations must therefore
naturally be entitled to take account of the environment,
the working environment and social goals when they
procure goods and services. This is a right, Mr Harbour,
and not a duty, even if you repeatedly try to present it as
such. It is a right that local authorities must be given,
with due attention having to be paid, of course, to
ensuring that there will be no question of a distortion of
competition. The EU has, of course, some splendid
objectives in both the environmental and social areas
but, if we do not integrate these objectives into all EU
legislation, then little progress will be made and we shall
not get anywhere. The public sector must be able to
make environmental demands of the products it
purchases, and it is particularly important to emphasise
in this connection that it must be able to impose
requirements upon such products throughout their whole
life cycles. It is surprising that the EU’s own eco-label
has been given so insignificant a place in the
Commission’s proposal and, when the public sector
prepares technical specifications, it must naturally be
able to refer to the EU’s own eco-label. By means of a
number of amendments, we have tried to integrate social
and environmental considerations. I hope that, this time
round, the Commission will take a positive view of this.
3-165
Bolkestein, Commission. – Mr President, I wish to thank
the rapporteur, Mr Zappalà, for the considerable amount
of work he had done on this most complicated and
important issue, as many Members have said this
afternoon.
In May 2000, the Commission adopted two proposed
directives designed to simplify and modernise
Community public procurement rules. Those proposals
contain significant new developments to adapt the
directives to modern procurement requirements. In the
interest of simplification, the Commission has proposed
a recasting of four existing directives merged into two
new ones.
I note that Parliament has taken advantage of this
recasting of the four directives to question the
Community acquis in areas where the Commission has
not proposed any changes. I refer here in particular to
the amendments raising the thresholds, which will
significantly reduce the directives' scope, above all –
61
may I say to Mrs McCarthy – with respect to small and
medium enterprises. If those proposals were to be
adopted, the Commission would have to give serious
thought as to whether the proposal should be retained at
all.
Many of the amendments put forward will help make an
important contribution to better procurement and are to
be welcomed. The Commission supports those
amendments which add to the simplification and
modernisation process. They are Amendments: Nos 1, 3,
167, 141, 4, 13, 16, 17, 24, 28, 34, 36, 174, 40, 50, 128,
53, 79, 80, 85, 88, 97, 109 – to the extent that it concerns
production processes – and 112.
The Commission can also accept the substance of a
number of amendments, subject to some drafting
changes, namely Amendments Nos 2, 10, 42 in part, 45,
46, 47, 123, 52 in part, 93 and 95 in part, 109, 110 and
154 concerning the extent to which environmental
considerations can be taken into account at different
stages of an award procedure. Similarly, Amendments
Nos 11, 15, 48 in part, 51, 129, 52, 86, 87, 124, 89, 100
in part, 110 and 164 concerning the need to ensure that
tenderers comply with employment law, can be included
in the directive in an appropriate form. That is also
partially the case for Amendment No 163 concerning
information on sub-contracting.
Various amendments designed to address the increasing
centralisation of procurement are also acceptable,
subject to some redrafting, namely Amendments Nos 5,
6, 20 in part, 126, 21, 41, 168, 172 in part and 175.
In a similar vein, Amendment No 38 concerning
consortia formed by contracting authorities and
Amendments Nos 39 and 40 are also acceptable.
A number of amendments add to the broad range of
electronic means available to contracting authorities,
namely Amendments Nos 23, 54 and 65 concerning
reverse electronic auctions, as well as Amendments Nos
74 and 104, which deal with the integrity and
confidentiality of data supplied by operators.
Concerning confidentiality of data, part of Amendment
No 31 can be accepted, though Amendment No 77
would then be superfluous and would have to be
rejected.
Various amendments concerning the competitive
dialogue, in particular as regards payment of
participants, can be taken into account, more specifically
Amendments Nos 9, 56, 57 in part, 58 in part, 137 in
part, and 138.
Various amendments which I would describe as
explanatory and which deal with a range of subjects are
also acceptable, namely Amendments Nos 7, 125 in part,
18, 142, 26, 30, 35, 46 in part, 70, 113, 114, 121, 132,
153, 169, 170 and 171. Subject to drafting changes, the
substance of Amendment No 147 concerning the
62
16/01/2002
applicability of the Treaty below the thresholds is also
acceptable, if placed in a recital.
specifications
environment.
On the other hand, the Commission has no alternative
but to reject amendments which call into question the
Community acquis, detract from modernisation of the
directives or make the regime more complex.
Accordingly, the Commission cannot accept the
following amendments:
Amendments which are not compatible with the flexible
nature of the competitive dialogue, in particular
Amendments Nos 55, 58 in part, 59, 60 and 160.
Amendments to raise the directives' thresholds – as I
said earlier – by 50%, the effect of which would be to
remove from the scope of the directives a large number
of contracts currently covered, namely Amendments Nos
32, 33, 67, 130, 101, 105 and 106. The unfortunate
consequences of these amendments are not alleviated by
Amendment No 147, however good its intentions. In
fact, the raison d'être of the directives is not in itself
sufficient without the detailed procedural rules of the
directives to guarantee uniform and legally certain
application and to safeguard the rights of economic
operators through efficient remedies.
Amendments introducing new exceptions to the scope of
the directives without appropriate justification, the effect
of which would be to remove a number of public
contracts from Community competition, namely
Amendments Nos 37, 38 in part, 122, 136, 150 and 157.
Amendments which undermine the very objective of
public procurement rules, which is to ensure that public
purchasers do not allow their decision to be influenced
by non-economic considerations, namely Amendments
Nos 12, 14, 98, 134, 140 and 166 concerning award
criteria which allow for the possibility of using noneconomic – and in particular social and environmental –
criteria.
Amendments which weaken attempts to modernise the
directives by reducing the scope for using electronic
procurement, namely Amendments Nos 70 in part, 73,
75, 102, 103, 115, 117 and 131.
Amendments imposing disproportionate requirements on
SMEs through the regulation of subcontracting and other
requirements, namely Amendments 42, 48 in part, 49,
76, 100 in part, 116, 133, 152 and 159.
Amendments which reduce transparency in calls for
competition, in particular Amendments Nos 62, 68 and
78, and which extend the scope to negotiate, namely
Amendments Nos 57, part of 61, 66 and 151.
Amendments which restrict the use of framework
agreements with no apparent justification, namely
Amendments Nos 25, 27, 135, 139, 63, 64 and 158.
Amendments introducing environmental considerations
into award procedures in a manner incompatible with the
directives, namely the part of Amendment No 45
concerning eco-labels, No 92 concerning the selection
stage and No 109 regarding the definition of technical
and
their
compatibility
with
the
Amendments containing additional cases where persons
convicted of certain offences would face mandatory
exclusion; in the proposed mechanism, only those cases
subject to criminal sanctions in all Member States
should be included. It is not, therefore, possible to take
account of some of these cases, namely Amendments
Nos 81, 82 and 83. On the other hand, some of these
cases are already covered by the optional exclusions
contained in Article 46(2). Amendments Nos 84 and 90
should also be rejected, since they could lead to a
situation where it is not possible to contract with a
company which is trying to re-establish itself financially.
Amendments which are superfluous or likely
significantly to change the effect of other provisions in
the directives without good reason, namely Amendments
Nos 8, 19, 20 in part, 22, 29, 30 in part, 43, 127, 44, 45
in part, 55, 59, 60, 69, 70 in part, 71, 72, 94, 96, 108,
111, 143, 156, 162, 172 in part and 173.
Amendments which, without justification, detract from
the powers delegated by the legislator to the
Commission under existing law, namely Amendment No
107.
The last category of amendments not acceptable to the
Commission as regards the first proposal are those
amendments which remove clarificatory changes
designed to create greater legal security, namely
Amendment No 99 on the weighting of award criteria,
Amendment No 100 on abnormally low tenders as a
result of State aid, Amendments Nos 144, 145, 146, 148
and 149 modifying the definition of works contracts, and
Amendment No 161 on the principles governing time
limits.
3-166
That is it as far as the first directive is concerned.
As regards the second directive, the so-called Utilities
Directive, it is the second proposal adopted by the
Commission in May 2000. Besides the objectives of
simplification and modernisation, which I just
mentioned, this second proposal is particularly aimed at
reviewing the scope of the directive in the light of
ongoing or future liberalisation of the sectors concerned.
This proposal is also a recasting of the existing texts,
with the proposed changes incorporated in a single text.
I can only repeat the misgivings caused, in particular, by
the proposed amendments concerning the threshold
values.
Many of the amendments put forward will help make an
important contribution to better procurement and are
therefore to be welcomed. The Commission supports the
amendments consistent with the line it has taken, such as
16/01/2002
Amendments Nos 2, 7, 21, 37, 43, 47, 95, 111 and 116.
The Commission can also – although somewhat
reluctantly – accept Amendment No 29, given the large
consensus on this amendment in both Parliament and
Council.
Subject to drafting changes the Commission can equally
accept the substance of a large number of amendments:
Amendments Nos 3, 18, 34 in part, 35, 36, 38, 40, 64,
87, 89, 92, 96, 99, 101, 118 and 119 concerning
technical specifications, the possibility of taking
environmental concerns into account at various stages of
an award procedure and means of proving technical and
financial capacity.
Amendments Nos 4, 9, 44 in part, 56, 90 in part, 93, 97
in part, and 108 in part concerning observance of other
legislation, in particular social legislation, clauses
relating to the execution of contracts and provisions
concerning sub-contracting.
Amendments Nos 57, 59, 60 and 109 concerning
exclusion criteria are acceptable in part to the extent that
obligatory exclusions are limited to contracting entities
which are public authorities and that the list of grounds
for obligatory exclusion corresponds to that provided for
under the Public Sector Directive.
Amendments Nos 66 in part, 67, 68, and 69 regarding
simplification of the provisions on mentioning the
relative weighting of award criteria.
Amendment No 70, depending on language versions as
changes are not required for certain of them, concerning
abnormally low tenders.
Amendment No 76 on the coal and solid fuel sector is
acceptable to the extent that it requires voluntary
application of Directive 94/22 to be taken into account
for the purposes of Article 29, however without such
voluntary application being associated with any legal
presumption.
Amendments Nos 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, and 86
concerning increased transparency on remedies. Subject
to acceptance of the substance of the Commission's
proposal on Article 29 the Commission could also
support Amendments Nos 13 and 16 concerning
transferral of entities offering postal services from the
Public Sector Directive to the Utilities Directive. The
objective of allowing economic exploitation of coalgenerated heat at the heart of Amendment No 15 will be
taken into account through the acceptance of
Amendment No 29. As drafted the amendment is not
acceptable as it would have quite different effects from
those intended.
Concerning the issue of contracts awarded between
related entities, Amendment No 27 is acceptable in part,
as far as the possibilities of awarding service contracts to
newly created, affiliated undertakings and of awards of
certain service contracts to a joint venture are concerned.
63
Amendments Nos 51 and 75 concerning preservation of
confidentiality in respect of information forwarded by
electronic means are acceptable. Various amendments
which I would describe as clarificatory and which deal
with a range of subjects are also acceptable, namely
Amendments Nos 22, 30, 53, 113 in part, and 117.
On the other hand the Commission has no alternative but
to reject amendments which question the Community
acquis, and which detract from modernisation of the
directives or make the regime more complex.
Accordingly, the Commission cannot accept the
following:
Amendments to raise the directive's thresholds by
approximately 50%, the effect of which would be to
remove from the scope of the directive a large number of
contracts currently covered or otherwise greatly reduce
transparency; namely Amendments Nos 20, 46, 72, 102,
105 and 107.
Amendments introducing new exceptions to the scope of
the directives without appropriate justification, the effect
of which would be to remove a number of contracts
from Community competition; namely Amendments
Nos 6, 19, 24, 25, 26, parts of 27, 28, 45 and 84.
Amendments which would substantially change the
conditions provided for in Article 29 and Annex X for
the Commission to grant legally binding exemptions in
the case of liberalisation having resulted in effective
competition or which would create inconsistencies
between this directive and other Community legislation:
Amendments Nos 31, 58, 76 insofar as its inclusion in
Annex X would create a legal presumption, and 77.
Those amendments which undermine the very objective
of public procurement rules, which is to ensure that
public purchasers do not allow their decision to be
influenced by non-economic considerations; namely
Amendments Nos 8, 17, 65, 94, 104, 110 and 122
concerning award criteria which allow for the possibility
of using non-economic criteria, in particular social or
environmental criteria.
Amendments which weaken attempts to modernise the
directives by reducing the scope for using electronic
procurement; namely Amendments Nos 49, 50, 73, 74
and 103.
Amendments imposing disproportionate requirements on
SMEs through regulation of subcontracting, in
Amendments Nos 32, 41, 42, and amendments
introducing social considerations into award procedures
in a manner incompatible with the directive, namely
Amendments Nos 33, 55, 62, 63, 71 and 88.
Amendments on technical specifications either
introducing environmental considerations in a manner
incompatible with the directives or introducing improper
requirements concerning equivalence of technical
solutions; namely Amendment No 34 for the part
64
16/01/2002
concerning eco-labels, 36 for the part concerning costs,
39, 91, 98 and 100.
Amendments which are not compatible with the flexible
nature of this directive, which is applicable to both
public and private commercial entities, and amendments
transferring provisions from the public sector directive
without good reasons, namely Amendments Nos 10, 11,
52, 54, parts of 59, parts of 60 and Amendment No 61.
Amendments which are superfluous, would create
significant legal uncertainty or are likely significantly to
change the effect of other provisions in the directives
without good reason; namely Amendments Nos 1, 5, 12,
14, 23, 48, parts of Amendment No 66 on the weighting
of award criteria, 106, 112, 114, 115, 120, 121, 123 and
124.
In my reply to Parliament and in view of the fact that
Parliament deserves to have the opinion of the
Commission on all the amendments which have been
tabled, I see that I have been speaking for 24 minutes. I
have some replies to question put to me during the
debate but I fear that would take me far beyond the time
allotted so I really am in your hands as to what you want
me to do.
3-167
IN THE CHAIR: MR. COLOM I NAVAL
Vice-President
3-168
Bolkestein, Commission. – May I suggest that I try to
briefly answer the various questions that have been put
and if you think I am speaking too long, please tell me
so.
3-169
President. – Thank you for your comprehensive
explanation. Perhaps you could offer us the answer in
writing but summarise the main points.
services purchased to be taken into account at the award
stage. Such considerations are not measurable; they
cannot assist in an evaluation of the intrinsic qualities of
the product or services and are therefore inappropriate at
the award stage.
In reply to Mr Rapkay and Mr Hughes, the purpose of
the public procurement directives is to coordinate the
procedures for the award of contracts and not to state
which obligations – social or otherwise – private
contractors must comply with once a contract is
awarded. Contractors are in any event required to
comply with all applicable laws and obligations, whether
social in nature or not.
However, the Commission is willing to state in the
recitals of the directives that tenderers must comply with
applicable social rules, including collective agreements
of general application in performing public procurement
contracts. The Commission also agrees that contracting
authorities should be required to state in the contract
documents the body from which information on
applicable social obligations can be obtained.
In reply to Mrs Hautala, I should like to say that
regarding the preliminary reference currently before the
Court of Justice, the Commission has taken note of the
conclusions of the Advocate-General. However, those
conclusions cannot prejudge the judgment itself. In
addition, having regard to the content of the
communication on the environment and public contracts,
the Commission – as it explained at the time of the Court
hearing – does not see an obstacle to the emissions
criterion being taken into account where this involves –
as the case of the city of Helsinki has shown – an
external cost to the purchaser itself. The Commission
will, therefore, wait for the Court's ruling and reconsider
interpretation in the light of the judgment and, if
necessary, will consider revising its position on the
amendments from the European Parliament.
3-170
Bolkestein, Commission. – In reply to Mr Zappalà, I
should like to say that the current definition of works
contracts explicitly provides that such contracts may be
for the sole construction or cover of both design and
construction. To change that approach would in
particular prevent or, at the very least, greatly hamper
use of turnkey projects, public/private partnerships,
works concessions and competitive dialogues. The
Commission is, therefore, opposed to imposing a
separation between the design and the execution of
works.
In reply to Mrs Schörling, the Commission has proposed
including as possible award criterion the environmental
characteristics of a product or service, provided that they
present an advantage to the contracting authority. That
criterion allows a public purchaser to evaluate the
intrinsic qualities of the product or service and to award
contracts to the most economically advantageous tender.
The proposed amendments go further, in allowing more
general environmental considerations such as the longterm effects on the environment of the products or
I should like to reply to Mr Lehne but, as he has left the
Chamber, I shall skip that part of my reply.
3-171
Zappalà (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (IT) Commissioner,
it is true that Mr Lehne is not here, but please feel free to
respond anyway. Your responses will then be conveyed
to Mr Lehne. This is a broad debate which reaches much
further than the people involved.
3-172
Bolkestein, Commission. – Mr President, the
Commission is always pleased to assist Members of
Parliament in forming their opinions. May I therefore
say that if Mr Lehne had been present I would have said
the following – and I am, of course, willing say it even
though Mr Lehne is not here.
Mr Lehne stated that social and environmental clauses
must be introduced in the tender documents themselves
and should not influence the choice at the award stage.
Therefore, I would support his view that Article 53 on
award criteria should not be modified. Such
16/01/2002
65
considerations may be taken into account at the
appropriate stage, either in the tender documents or in
the contractual clauses.
real and efficient internal market required that those
rules and principles be clarified through detailed
provisions coordinating national procedures.
I cannot support Amendment No 147 by Mr Zappalà,
since it will not provide any legal certainty to economic
operators.
To revert to the legal situation of the 1970s – and this
would be the result of the proposal just made and
enshrined in Amendment No 147 – is not acceptable,
especially in a proposal aimed at modernising the
legislation. Moreover, to do so would also deprive
economic operators of one of the most important
advances in the field of public procurement, namely the
possibility of enforcing their rights through efficient
legal remedies guaranteed through the two specific
directives which govern remedies in respect of contracts
falling within the scope of the public procurement
directives. Therefore, the introduction of Amendment
No 147 simply does not make the amendments aimed at
raising thresholds throughout the directive acceptable.
May I end my reply to Parliament here and conclude by
saying that there is now a real need to ensure that our
public procurement rules remain relevant to increasingly
sophisticated procurement requirements. That is why
Parliament and the Council must now press ahead to
ensure that these directives are adopted at the earliest
opportunity.
Mr President, I am sorry for having spoken for fully half
an hour, but I feel that Parliament is entitled to a
complete response to the many amendments tabled. The
Commission awaits the vote tomorrow.
3-173
Zappalà (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, in
view of the importance of the matter, I would just like to
ask the Commissioner to clarify something. In any case,
I would like to thank him for all his comments, which
were certainly important from my point of view,
although I do maintain – and I will do so tomorrow –
that Parliament should have the autonomy to decide on a
political basis rather than on the basis of other factors.
However, his response regarding Amendment No 147
does not make sense at all: while the Commission is
against raising the thresholds – which, as was said
during the hearings, meetings and debates within the
Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I
believe is because it wants the directives on works
contracts to be applied as widely as possible – according
to what the Commissioner has just said, raising the
thresholds would actually reduce the number of works
contracts.
Now then, Amendment No 147 seeks specifically to
open up works contracts to competition, and I cannot
understand why the Commission is opposed to this. I
would be grateful to the Commissioner if, either now or
later in private, by some means or other, he could
explain to me what part of Amendment No 147 is
unacceptable. It is important, Mr President, for this is no
trivial matter. I repeat, if it is not appropriate to do so
now because it is time to suspend our work or move on
to something else, I am quite prepared, if the
Commissioner agrees, even to meet him afterwards so
that he can explain to me what is wrong with
Amendment No 147, which, as I see it, ensures that
absolutely all works contracts, of whatever type, can be
governed by European legislation.
3-174
Bolkestein, Commission. – Mr President, I shall try to
be brief. Until 1971 the only rules and principles
applicable to public procurement were those enshrined
in the Treaty itself, and in particular the provisions of
Articles 28 and 49. However, experience has shown that
the genuine opening up of markets and the creation of a
3-175
President. – There is still some misunderstanding. I
believe we can find a bilateral means of solving this.
The debate is closed.
The vote will be taken tomorrow at 12 noon.
3-176
Ozone in ambient air
3-177
President. – The next item is the debate on the report
(A5-0454/2001) by Mr Davies, on the joint text
approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European
Parliament and Council directive relating to ozone in
ambient air [PE-CONS 3658/2001 – C5-0524/2001 –
1999/0068(COD)]
3-178
Davies (ELDR), rapporteur. – Mr President, I had not
followed the last report in any detail but if
Commissioner Wallström is in the same sort of mood as
Commissioner Bolkestein, I am glad I am not tabling
any amendments today.
On a complete change of note, a few weeks ago I was
reading to my daughter, Kate, from A Christmas Carol
by the 19th-century British author Charles Dickens.
Scrooge sat in his counting house, he wrote. "The city
clocks had only just gone three, but it was quite dark
already and candles were flaring in the windows of the
neighbouring offices like ruddy smears upon the
palpable brown air."
It must be a great cause for cheer in European cities
today that we no longer have to breathe that "palpable
brown air". It is a sign of environmental progress and
achievement that air quality now is better than it has
been for centuries.
But there is more yet to be done, and in its Clean Air for
Europe programme the Commission has identified
particulates and ozone as two priorities for action.
66
Ozone pollution contributes to the premature death of
tens of thousands of people each year; it causes
breathing difficulties, coughs, headaches and eye
irritation. The World Health Organisation has not been
able to identify a threshold below which there are no
effects.
It can also damage vegetation, reduce crop yields and
stunt the growth of forests and, like acid rain, it can eat
into and destroy the fabric of buildings and works of art.
And so we have this draft directive to address the
problem. It started out as a remarkably weak proposal,
the key element of which was to set targets for 2010 for
the maximum number of exceedances above WHO
guidelines, but these targets would not have been
binding on Member States. It also called for the
preparation of short-term action plans to deal with acute
problems and for more public information and health
alerts.
During the course of the past two years, Parliament has
been able to use its codecision powers to give this
legislation some teeth. We have strengthened the
public's right to information. We have made it easier for
recalcitrant countries to be named and shamed into
improving their performance. We have ensured that
damage to materials is included amongst the criteria for
consideration. We have re-emphasised our wish to see
long-term reductions in ozone levels achieved by 2020
in line with the National Emissions Ceilings Directive
proposals.
But above all, we have addressed the issue of the nonbinding short-term targets. Instead of Member States
having to work to achieve these "as far as possible",
which was the original proposal, we have insisted that
effective measures shall be taken unless the targets
cannot be achieved by "proportionate measures". I want
to emphasise that we agreed this wording because both
the Commission and our own legal services advised us
that it would make the provisions of the directive
enforceable and that Member States could be taken to
the European Court of Justice if they failed to take such
measures. In other words, we have used our codecision
powers to transform a statement of good intent into a
legally binding commitment.
Even so, the European Environmental Bureau has
criticised us, asking: "Why do we need a directive at all
if the 2010 targets are not fully binding?" But this
misunderstands the nature of ozone pollution. It is
hugely transboundary. While peak exceedances are
falling across Europe, the average level is continuing to
rise, almost certainly as a result of pollution generated
far from our shores.
I do not believe that Spain, or Italy, or Germany, or any
of us should face the prospect of legal sanctions because
they are being polluted from China. That would not be
fair and it would not be realistic. I want Member States
here to be required to do all that they can realistically to
meet the targets, no more and no less.
16/01/2002
I think that "palpable brown air" gave a lot of character
to the story of Scrooge. But it is not appropriate now.
Perhaps I will ask my daughter, Kate, if she will write a
21st-century version featuring clean air.
However, with the assistance of the Commission and the
last Belgian Presidency, Parliament has been able in the
meantime to use its negotiating powers to turn a simple
wish list into a requirement for our various governments
to take action which will significantly improve air
quality across Europe.
We have secured greater changes and a more ambitious
directive than we could reasonably have expected when
the draft was first proposed.
We can be proud of what we have achieved.
3-179
García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr
President, the directive on ozone in ambient air is
intended to provide a response to the problem of
tropospheric ozone produced and trapped in the air
around the earth’s surface which, as we all know, has
damaging effects on both human health and on the
planet’s vegetation, ecosystems and on the environment
as a whole. The concentration of ozone, as we know, is
due to the accumulation in the atmosphere of precursor
agents, but there is no easy solution, of course, to
eradicating them, because these precursor agents
sometimes act to reduce ozone in the atmosphere.
Various measurements taken at national level have
shown that, in climatic conditions such as high
luminosity and a stable atmosphere, reducing the
precursor agents does not produce the desired effect of
reducing the concentration of ozone. In fact, it does the
complete opposite. Therefore, the solution to the
problem of ozone concentration is extremely complex
and simply shutting off the sources that generate
precursor agents is not an appropriate measure. An
example of this would be closing down a factory
chimney that emits smoke, which is a precursor agent of
ozone, into the atmosphere.
The rapporteur and various members of the Committee
on the Environment – including myself – have been
working intensely for almost two years to both improve
the Commission’s proposal, which was undoubtedly
necessary, and also to achieve a balanced proposal that
would ensure maximum compliance by the Member
States. Lastly, in October, a joint text was produced,
which was then approved by the Conciliation
Committee.
I should like to emphasise a very positive aspect of the
proposal that has been adopted, which is the
combination of long-term objectives with a short-term
approach to these high-risk situations, and all the
measures designed to ensure rigorous control and
monitoring of ozone levels in the atmosphere in all
Member States.
16/01/2002
I also think it is important to apply the principle of
transparency where information is concerned, since the
population must be more and better informed about the
incidences of ozone levels in the atmosphere.
Another important aspect is the consideration of
meteorological conditions and comparisons between the
various Member States, which must lead to information
being provided so that we can monitor developments in
this issue in the various Member States.
67
just as we have acquired a number of rules as to when
people are to be notified that there are problems with the
unduly strong concentration of ozone – both people in
general and people belonging to groups which are
especially sensitive to problems in this area.
This directive represents a major step in the right
direction, providing a balanced approach to the problem
of contamination and, together with the directive on
national emission ceilings, we feel that these will
genuinely prove to be very important tools with which
we can address environmental problems and especially
the problem of contamination in a cross-functional way.
Finally, I would say that I also think it is good that we
have got the candidate countries on board so that they
can be involved early on. We can of course now look
forward to the directive’s coming into force before the
first candidate countries accede to the EU so that, even
at the time of their accession, they will have to comply
with the obligations imposed by the directive upon
existing Member States. I hope that, by means of this
directive, we can prevent and reduce the harmful effects
of the unduly high concentrations of ozone upon
people’s health and upon vegetation and that today
might prove to have been a good day for future air
quality in Europe.
3-180
3-181
Lund (PSE). – (DA) Mr President, thank you first of all
to Commissioner Wallström and Mr Davies for the good
work they have done on this matter. Specifically where
ozone is concerned, we are of course in an odd situation.
High up in the atmosphere, the ozone layer is too thin,
which causes problems, including health problems.
Down here on earth, on the other hand, the concentration
is, of course, far too strong. I think, however, that we
have obtained a good result from the conciliation
negotiations and, in actual fact, probably a better result
than many of us had dared to hope for when we listened
to some of the Member States’ negative attitudes
towards solving the air quality problem with which we
are concerned here. Together with the Directive on
National Emission Ceilings, for which Mrs Myller, here
beside me, was rapporteur, this directive makes an
important contribution to securing a lower concentration
of ozone in Europe and, especially, in the large cities of
Europe.
Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, I believe that
the Directive, which is now in its third and final reading,
will improve air quality in Europe. It amends the 1996
Directive so as to meet the national emission ceilings for
atmospheric pollutants and the recommendations of the
World Health Organisation. The work of Parliament in
the drafting of the Directive was significant, and so once
again our warm congratulations go to Mr Davies and to
our other colleagues who were involved in this process,
which lasted over two years. In addition, we need to give
our special thanks once again for the work of Belgium as
Council President.
I think it is good that we have been given a starting point
in the form of the WHO’s assessments of the existing
risks to health and to the environment. We have got
some partial goals established, or target values for 2010,
and these must be met. However, it is naturally cause for
concern that, for many years, we shall be obliged to
accept that the WHO’s thresholds are being exceeded to
a certain extent on a certain number of days per year. I
therefore think it good that we also obtained agreement
to there having to be some more long-term objectives, in
terms of which the WHO’s target values must be
complied with. What was agreed was not quite so
precise as we should have liked here in Parliament. A
reference point was set for 2020. Many of us should
have liked to have seen 2020 become a more definite
deadline for meeting the WHO’s recommendations. I
also believe it is good that the Member States should not
only be obliged to prepare practical programmes for
achieving the targets, but that obligations should also be
imposed in terms of informing people about the
programmes that are being prepared and about the
results – both positive and negative – that are obtained,
In the Directive which has now been approved, the
Member States are obliged to submit plans which will
allow the limit values necessary for the protection of
human health and of vegetation to be lowered by 2010.
2020 will be the benchmark year for long-term
objectives and for the subsequent revision of the
Directive. In special risk zones, short-term action plans
plus active and open information and publicity work are
also required.
From the point of view of this Directive, it is of
particular importance that an attempt be made to also
involve all the candidate countries at as early a stage as
possible, since the distance impact of nitrogen oxides
and volatile organic compounds on lower atmosphere
ozone levels is significant. In Finland for example the
greater part of the ozone present in the lower atmosphere
originates from transboundary pollution, in other words
from emissions which our country could, in reality,
hardly influence at all without the European Union.
Mr President, as you have personally remarked, we have
arrived at the half-way point in Parliament's fifth term of
elected office. Parliament has already at this stage of its
term been able to exert significant influence on the
improvement of the air quality in the Union and the
candidate countries. In the environmental field,
Parliament has thus used its new and enhanced authority
in a good and responsible manner. This work needs to be
68
continued, the Commission must be encouraged to be
more ambitious when drafting its proposals, and the
good cooperation developed with the Council in the field
of the environment needs to be kept as warm and
effective as it is at present.
3-182
Wallström, Commission.  (SV) Mr President, I am of
course very pleased that we are now approaching the
time when we can adopt the Directive on ozone in
ambient air. Thanks to this directive, we shall be able to
protect vegetation and people’s health from the
damaging effects of unduly high concentrations of
ozone, except in those cases where that cannot be
brought about by proportionate measures. I therefore
warmly welcome the Conciliation Committee’s joint
draft from 11 November 2001.
As has already been pointed out, the directive has been
improved on essential points in the process from
common position to final directive. It has become clearer
and more consistent, and that has been possible thanks to
the high quality of the European Parliament’s proposal
and of the successful negotiations during the
conciliation. I wish quite simply to take the opportunity
of conveying my special thanks to the rapporteur, Mr
Davies, and all the members of the Conciliation
Committee.
3-183
President. – Thank you, Commissioner.
16/01/2002
The main objective of the programme, of course, is to
integrate environmental policy with the other sectors of
policy. In this respect this forms a continuation to the
Fifth Environmental Action Programme, but in the
course of this integration we must attain concrete
objectives and actual results, and then we will also need
structural amendments, for example to the Commission's
own actions. The objective of integration is of course
that the environmental aspect be taken into consideration
in the various policy sectors themselves. Special
emphasis must be given to the areas of energy policy,
transport policy, agriculture and fishing, since these are
the most difficult areas from the point of view of the
environment.
The future agricultural reform must take steps in the
direction of more sustainable procedures, and the new
instruments for improving the state of the environment
must incorporate a clear focusing of the EU's aid policy
on the environmental aspect. The conflict which
presently reigns over subsidies from the environmental
point of view must be eliminated. An inventory should
be established of environmentally-damaging subsidies,
and these must be phased out by 2010 at the latest.
Money, incidentally, can act as a fine consultant, and in
this spirit environmentally-related and energy taxes (for
example) must also be developed. I am also very pleased
that here in Parliament we have been able to give very
broad approval to the idea that environmentally-related
taxation needs to be developed also at EU level.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
3-184
Sixth Community Environment Action Programme
3-185
President. – The next item is the debate on the
recommendation for second reading (A5-0456/2001) by
Mrs Myller, on behalf of the Committee on the
Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on
the Council common position with a view to the
adoption of a European Parliament and Council Decision
laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action
Programme [11076/1/2001 – C5-0434/2001 –
2001/0029(COD)].
3-186
Myller (PSE), rapporteur. – (FI) Mr President, with
regard to the Sixth Environment Action Programme I
would first of all like to offer thanks to the ‘shadow
rapporteurs’ of the various Parliamentary groups for
their fine cooperation. This cooperation with the
‘shadow rapporteurs’ has meant that the voting agenda,
at least, looks very different than in the first reading: we
have concentrated exclusively on the most important
amendments. I hope that this fine cooperation will also
continue in the voting tomorrow. The Commission, too,
has been a good cooperation partner: we have held a
great many discussions. Our special thanks go to
Sweden, which acted as President during the first
reading.
Qualitative and quantitative objectives, and timetables,
must be set for the most important environmental
problems. This has been a very contentious question: the
Commission has not supported this, and the Council also
has doubts. My own opinion is that in this type of
programme it is very important to understand those
requirements which are to be placed on decision-making
from the environmental point of view. By setting
objectives and by dividing them sensibly over time
periods, we will make it possible for political decisionmakers to understand, at any given future stage, what
sort of decisions must be made in the situation at hand.
In my opinion these objectives are required, in
particular, as instruments for directing policy.
The Commission proposes thematic strategies, which
will subsequently guide the environmental policy of the
future. The Commission suggests six; Parliament has
added an urban thematic initiative, and this has been
very largely approved. The thematic strategies must be
approved using the codecision procedure. In my opinion
this is quite self-evident, since it is through these
strategies that we will be directing environmental policy
in its crucial aspects.
As I stated, there are very few amendments; but I would
like to say a few words about one of them. This is the
amendment by the European Liberal and Democratic
Party group concerning rejection of the common
position. In my opinion this will not be of any benefit to
this matter, nor do I understand its content; it is only by
16/01/2002
improving the common position that we will bring about
improvements in European environmental policy.
3-187
González Álvarez (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, I
would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, for having, at
first reading, voiced the concerns of the European
Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. Given the daily
practice of this Committee, these could only be concerns
relating compliance with this legislation, as raised in
some of the rapporteur’s amendments and compromise
amendments. All policies should be integrated into
environmental policy – as stated in some of the
amendments – and public participation and information
is necessary – also as stated in some of the amendments.
I am not hiding the fact that, as a citizen of a small
mining region in Asturias – and I am speaking here in a
personal capacity and not on behalf of my group – that I
have some problems with the amendment on imposing a
time limit on subsidies for projects that could damage
the environment. I do not have a problem with it in
general terms, but specifically with regard to the fact
that, in the region in which I live, more than 30 000 jobs
have been lost as a direct result of restructuring. For this
reason I do not agree with these amendments. However,
we completely agree with the rest of them.
We also agree with some of our fellow Members – and I
am sure that my colleague Jonas Sjöstedt would support
me here – that this latest proposal is not the one put
forward by the European Parliament. This is a proposal
that was debated, on which agreements were reached
between all of the groups and between the rapporteur
and the Commission and the Council to arrive at this
latest proposal that we have here. For this reason, I also
agree with the rapporteur that we cannot accept, and
shall reject, the amendment from the Group of the
Europe Liberal, Democrat and Reform party that
suggests rejecting the proposal.
The proposal is highly important, Mr President. The
Fifth Community Environment Action Programme has
come to an end. The European Union needs a clearly
defined strategy with commitments and specific
timetables for the next few years and it seems to me that
this is potentially a clearly defined proposal with
commitments and a specific timetable, which, indeed,
we have a great need to implement.
3-188
Gutiérrez-Cortines (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I
am pleased to say that, at this second reading, the parties
have worked to bring their positions closer together. And
although the Council and the Commission have made an
effort to accept the many amendments from our first
reading, I think that we can now say that it is Parliament
that has made the effort to try to find, and reach
agreement on, common positions. In this regard, the role
of Mrs Myller deserves a special mention.
We think that this is a reasonable programme that allows
the Commission to work, makes it possible to legislate
and allows States to be flexible within viable
69
programmes, and for this reason we feel that we must
support it. This is an appropriate framework for
combining the development of European communities in
a pivotal policy of sustainable development and I think
that it is up to the task. If carried out in this way, it
should be clear in conciliation that certain areas are
subject to the principle of subsidiarity.
I would also like to talk about principles. The desire to
see all methods used everywhere and to implement a
uniform policy in all States runs counter to the principle
of sustainability and belongs to the globalist mindset. It
is very easy to attack globalisation when talking about
the economy yet not to want to call imposing the same
rules on the whole world globalisation. Social principles,
technological viability and the context in which methods
are applied are all of great importance to sustainability;
the first principle of sustainability is to know how to
combine general principles with the imposed rules to
suit the needs of each community, each location, each
climate and each context.
We must be sufficiently generous of spirit to give those
in government the freedom to impose their own rules,
something that we shall also continue to do, and to adapt
them as they see fit.
Furthermore, we support a scientific policy and feel that
the function of the Popular Party and of Parliament, in
this case, is to support the Council and the Commission
because codecision is not only Parliament’s right, but
also a responsibility that should be used to help
governments. For this reason, for example, we respect
the dates of all these agreements that the Commission
and the Council are to conclude with other European
countries. We need to be serious in this regard and
support this policy that has required such efforts to
produce.
We support the thematic strategies and a more scientific
policy precisely because this means adapting to the
current state of affairs, adapting to the situation of a
particular State, sector and to the issue at hand. We have
to assess whether suitably adapted and applicable
technologies exist, for in many instances, due to the
climate, particular conditions, or size of a company, for
example, technologies can differ. The results, however,
should be the same.
Therefore, we support the scientific nature and the study
of the economic and social impacts that the programme
will have, because without social principles, there can be
no sustainability. For this very reason we are not in
favour of simply revising subsidies, that is to say, of a
target date being fixed whatever the subsidy may be, and
this is particularly the case for specific sectors that have
had to close due to measures dictated by the
Commission, which has imposed laws upon them – such
as in the coal sector, for example – that are now facing
the problem of some criteria being applied more strictly
than others.
70
Let us first define the criteria for negative subsidies and
take account of the fact that five years is not a sufficient
amount of time for a generation to recover nor for
certain deprived areas to regenerate.
Moreover, we reject the principle of substitution,
because it offers no guarantees to industry, to the
citizens, or to society, and lends itself to a very free
interpretation by certain sectors, countries, civil servants
or experts which may lead to the establishment of
measures that are damaging to society and that have no
legal guarantee. And the principle of legal guarantee is
inherent to the Rule of Law.
I hope that this scheme of management can be
implemented.
3-189
Hulthén (PSE).  (SV) Mr President, I should like to
thank Mrs Myller who, for a long time now, has had the
task of working on this action programme and has
fought resolutely to enable us to get it into order. It is
splendid to know that we are at last at the stage at which
we are to adopt a position on the Sixth Environment
Action Programme.
In view of this, it is not perhaps so surprising that many
of us wish, and had wished, that the programme might
have been better and feel disappointed that it is not as
good as we would have liked. At the same time, we
perhaps also feel some kind of frustration concerning the
unfair distribution of power we sometimes seem to
perceive between the institutions, and wish in some way
to express this specifically in the case of the Sixth
Environment Action Programme.
I should therefore like to see liberals and others who are
reflecting along these lines pull themselves together and
rise above their own frustrations. Let us differentiate
between policy and processes and do what we have a
mandate for. Let us do it well and take the institutional
and constitutional battle elsewhere and not where the
Sixth Environment Action Programme is at issue.
Let us see what kind of thing the Sixth Environment
Action Programme is and see what we are to use it for,
namely as a guiding star in all EU policy –environmental
and otherwise– and as a lynchpin of the entire
sustainable development strategy with which we shall
travel together to Johannesburg in September of this
year. There is no reason for rejecting this document. We
must adopt it today.
Regarding Mrs Myller’s reference to the common
environment tax, I would make a point of mentioning
recent reports in Sweden to the effect that the dramatic
fall in the quantities of climate-changing gases is due
precisely to the carbon dioxide tax. This further supports
the case for our having to continue the fight, together
with the Commission, to ensure that the Council is
convinced that now is the time for us to introduce a
common environment tax, especially where carbon
dioxide is concerned.
16/01/2002
3-190
Maaten (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, we held our first
debate on the Commission’s Sixth Community
Environment Action Programme in May last year. At the
time, the Commission proposal came under heavy attack
from us as the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat
and Reform Party. In our view, the programme was far
too broad and showed a serious lack of priorities. At the
same time, we wondered whether a ten-year plan was
really, in fact, outdated.
We are now eight months further on, and have had input
from the Commission, the Council and Parliament’s
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and
Consumer Policy. Any satisfaction or progress? No,
unfortunately, neither. The proposal, as it was presented
at the time, has since been cut down to the bone. The
position of the Council of Ministers is deeply
disappointing on all fronts. Last time, I used the image
of a Christmas tree, trimmed with a multitude of
proposals, which devalued the entire text.
The current plan has more in common with an empty
box than a Christmas tree. The form is just about
presentable, but is very much lacking in content. I can
tell you straight away who is not to blame for this. Our
rapporteur, Mrs Myller, has done sterling work, and the
Commissioner has made every effort to tighten up the
plan and take the wishes of this House more into
consideration. However, it is the Council that has
frustrated every substantial improvement to the proposal.
It is staggering to realise that when we, as Parliament,
vote on the plan’s current version, we shall in fact be
back to square one, and this after two years of hard graft
on the part of the Commission and Parliament. Can this
be justified to the European citizen? They set great store
by the environment. It is now the Council that has
destroyed all the good work that has been done.
So what should have been done instead? According to
my group, the priorities that are completely lacking in
the plan are climate change, energy, waste and biodiversity. In addition, the plan should have been much
more concise and should have been characterised by far
more cohesion and vision. In our view, the Council is
best summed up as an emperor without clothes. He may
seem unremarkable at first glance, but fails the test upon
further inspection.
This is not a strategy, it is even less than existing policy
in a pleasant format. It therefore constitutes a step back,
and we propose to reject the present proposal in its
entirety.
3-191
Schörling (Verts/ALE).  (SV) Mr President, those who
work on environmental issues and on a variety of
measures, programmes, conventions, items of legislation
etc are often surprised and impatient at how slow the
process is and at how difficult it is to specify in concrete
terms how objectives in terms of protecting the
environment and public health are to be formulated and
implemented. That is also how it has been with the Sixth
Environment Action Programme. First of all, it was not
16/01/2002
certain that we should obtain any action programme at
all. When we then saw the Commission’s proposal, we
thought that it was extremely vague and lacked both
qualitative and quantitative objectives and timetables.
An environment action programme must naturally
establish environmental objectives if there is to be any
point at all in having a programme. Mrs Myller, as
rapporteur, and the Committee on the Environment,
Public Health and Consumer Policy have genuinely tried
to improve the Sixth Environment Action Programme. I
wish to thank the rapporteur for this and also thank other
fellow MEPs for their valuable cooperation.
When we are now about to adopt a view on the
Council’s position at second reading, we see that the
Council has in fact introduced a very great many of
Parliament’s amendments. When it comes to specifying
deadlines etc, things are still extremely sluggish,
however. We must now take the opportunity of changing
this by voting in favour of the committee’s amendments
and the compromise amendments tabled by quite a few
political groups.
The programme’s overarching aim is to decouple, for
example, environmental pressures from economic
growth. Up until now, the improvements that have been
made have been offset by increased production and
consumption. Another general principle is to supply the
basis and the priorities for sustainable development and
to apply the precautionary and substitution principles. So
that it is possible to do this, I should like to recommend
all MEPs to vote in favour of Amendment No 44, which
of course requires it to be discovered by no later than
2003 which forms of EU aid run directly counter to our
aims, that is to say have a negative effect on the
environment, and requires the year to be established by
which this aid must be abolished.
Where chemicals and pesticides are concerned, I think
that all the amendments tabled on this issue are sound.
The chemicals organisations’ umbrella organisation,
CEFIC, has taken the view that the amendments are not
in accordance with the report on chemicals strategy. I
maintain that this view has just been plucked out of thin
air. It is sad that such an incomplete and one-sided
analysis has been carried out. As rapporteur for the
White Paper, I can assure you that these amendments are
sound and that they strengthen the Sixth Environment
Action Programme.
When it comes to the proposal from the Group of the
European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, we
should, in common with Mrs Hulthén, have liked the
programme to have been more vigorous and have liked
to get more measures through. The proposal is not now
to be altered, however. There is so much we must do and
agree upon within these institutions. That is why I would
definitely wish to reject the ELDR’s proposal and call
upon everyone to vote in favour of the proposal by the
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and
Consumer Policy and of the compromise amendments
that have been tabled.
71
3-192
Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL).  (SV) Mr President, I must first
address the proposal from the Group of the European
Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party to reject the
common position. That is a proposal which we cannot
support. We think it would be irresponsible not to take a
decision on the Sixth Environment Action Programme.
I too should have liked the proposal to have gone much
further. The original proposal was extremely weak and
also vague. The fact is, however, that some of what
Parliament contributed has been incorporated into the
joint proposal. We shall therefore have the opportunity
tomorrow to introduce a great many of the quantitative
objectives and timetables we actually want to see. We
must not pass up that opportunity.
We must put this proposal in its context. During the
period that this environment action programme is to
apply, the European Union will be enlarged through the
accession of a large number of new countries. There is a
danger of this causing a number of problems in terms of
environmental work too. There is a danger of the work’s
losing momentum, and it may become more difficult to
push through new environmental laws. It would not be
particularly wise to do without environment action
programmes at such a stage. So that environmental work
does not lose momentum, it is no doubt desirable to have
a programme with timetables and practical objectives to
adhere to when enlargement takes place.
My group will vote in favour both of the committee’s
proposal and of all the compromise amendments we
arrived at in these negotiations. We do not think the
situation is perfect, but we think it is acceptable.
I wish particularly to mention Amendment No 10, which
I think is important. This concerns the European
Investment Bank. There were quite a lot of MEPs who
voted against this amendment in the committee. I find
that incomprehensible because it is an amendment which
goes to the very heart of integrating environmental
considerations into other policy areas, something that the
European Investment Bank has not been successful at
doing. What is required of the bank, namely that it take
account of the environment, ought to be self-evident.
That is why it is so important for them to receive the
clear message that they too are not exempt from what is
required. The same applies to chemicals policy, where
we want to see strict wordings.
3-193
Hyland (UEN). – Mr President, not for the first time in
this House I have the opportunity to express concern
with regard to the safety of nuclear installations, and in
particular those with an established record of poor
management, since they put the lives and health of
millions of citizens at risk. Such is the case with the
British government's nuclear installation at Sellafield.
This is not just my view: the litany of management
blunders and serious technical defects is a matter of
public record, which has been exposed, despite efforts to
keep it secret.
72
It is inconceivable that the British Government should
set out to justify not only the continuity of Sellafield in
its present dangerous condition, but also wish to add
further to its operations by commissioning the MOX
processing facility. Because of its closer proximity to
Ireland than to most parts of the British mainland, the
Irish Government has again raised serious objections to
the continued operation of this dangerous plant.
Records in this House will show that on a previous
occasion I called on the Commission to exercise its
powers under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty in
relation to verification of nuclear installations at
Sellafield. In reply to queries from my political group,
the Commission recently confirmed that the last time it
undertook such an audit was in 1993, nearly a decade
ago. Bearing in mind the number of times that this
matter has been raised in the House by all political
groups, how can the Commission possibly justify its
silence and inactivity on a matter of such serious public
concern? I call on the Commission to immediately
initiate an examination of all activities on the Cumbria
site and ask the Commissioner to give assurance to that
effect in his reply.
3-194
Bernié (EDD). – (FR) Mr President, by bringing
together several sectoral directives such as those on
climate change and waste management, the Commission
is seeking to launch an innovative programme to
improve the environment. The end result is a real
labyrinth that is incomprehensible to the citizen.
However, the Council has again adopted a more realistic
position by not setting a binding timetable or target. So
what does the rapporteur want? Is it realistic, for
instance, to incorporate the substitution principle, which
currently has no political or legal definition?
There are also issues surrounding environmental crime,
environmentally related taxes and legislation on
environmental responsibility. We should also be in step
with the resolution that was adopted last November
relating to chemicals. These issues, which are crucial for
our economy, cannot be dealt with hurriedly within the
framework of this report. I am also concerned by the
emphasis placed on biodiversity, with the headache
involved in setting up the Natura 2000 network, both in
France and elsewhere.
The approach to this subject is not correct either and
there are alternatives. We shall therefore vote in favour
of rejecting the amendment as a whole. Let us remain
realistic and pragmatic. Let us go back to the main aims
of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme, namely
to ensure a high level of protection, taking into account
the subsidiarity principle and diversity in the various
regions of the Community. To do this, in my view, is
already a fair challenge.
3-195
Jackson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I hope we can get
agreement on the Sixth Environmental Action
Programme, preferably without going into conciliation. I
would like, on behalf of the committee, to thank Mrs
16/01/2002
Müller for the immense amount of work she has put into
this report. I underline my support for the amount of
work she has done because I actually disagree with
many of the conclusions she has come to. Nevertheless,
we have dealt with this matter so extensively that we
will probably not gain anything by extending the process
to the full beauties of late-night conciliation in Brussels.
The amendments tabled by the committee and the
rapporteur do not really add up to anything of substance
and, where they do, the results would probably be to
damage the chances of success of the Environmental
Action Programme. I draw your attention to Amendment
No 11, which is already out of date.
I would criticise, as Mr Bernié has done, the reliance of
the rapporteur to a considerable extent on jargon. Old
war horses are trotted out again and given one more
exhausted run around the course. The chemical industry
is focused on as the villain of the piece and the
substitution principle makes a well-earned reappearance
in the amendments that the committee has asked the
House to consider. The assumption of at least
Amendment No 1 – and to some extent Amendment No
30 – is that the substitution principle exists as a fully
worked-out concept. It does not. It is an amalgam of
assumptions and suspicions fudged together by the green
movement as a universal panacea. The amendments talk
of this as a fully worked-out policy, but we should at
least be consistent. The Schörling report, which we
voted on a few months ago, called on the Commission to
produce a definition of the substitution policy principle,
so we can hardly deal with it now as though it really is in
existence.
Do we need a Sixth Environmental Action Programme?
I do not share the cynicism and despair of some in the
ELDR Group. Some sort of route map or check list is
helpful and desirable. The Commission probably built
on previous mistakes by attaching so much weight to the
idea of a programme. The poor Commissioner wanted a
slim programme and has ended up with a fatty!
I also regret – and she may regret – the submission of
the programme to full codecision because that has
certainly lengthened the process without adding to the
substance. The best part of the Environmental Action
Programme for me is the concentration on better
implementation. In the old days we wanted an action
programme in order to put pressure on the Council to
agree to legislation. Now the trouble is that the Council
does agree to legislation and then does very little about
it.
Without better implementation we are deceiving the
people of Europe into believing that things are getting
better and better, in the words of the old Labour Party
advertisement. Just as at home in UK things are not
getting better and better, the words remain easy to say
but they are often not followed by action and it is up to
us to see that they are.
3-196
16/01/2002
Bowe (PSE). – Mr President, I have a speech here, but I
must admit that Mrs Jackson has rather distracted me
into thinking about how things get better and better after
you reach a certain age. Clearly Mrs Jackson has
reached that certain age and she now thinks everything
in the past better than it is now.
Like Mrs Jackson, I also wish to thank the rapporteur for
her good work. This document is worth voting for, but it
would be more worthwhile voting for if it contained a
few more of Parliament's amendments.
In the field of chemicals policy, the field of preserving
biodiversity, climate change, transport and the protection
of air and water quality, there are clear and worthwhile
proposals that could be built upon in the conciliation
process.
In the field of fiscal policy, there are some serious and
sensible suggestions in Parliament's amendments.
However, the setting at the moment of any kind of
European-wide environmental taxes must be better
thought out. At the moment it is like taking a
sledgehammer to crack a whole series of very different
nuts, with what I would guess would be very limited
success.
We must now as a Parliament unite and tomorrow
morning take the next step into conciliation, where we
are going to have to work together with a view to
achieving a common viewpoint to the way in which we
are going to protect the environment of our common
European home and preserve it for future generations. I
look forward to taking that step tomorrow morning and
to the Christian Democrats helping us to do so.
3-197
de Roo (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, I should like
to thank Mrs Myller. She managed to get an excellent
report adopted by the Committee on the Environment,
Public Health and Consumer Policy. I have to be honest.
The Council proposal is weak, lacks any imagination,
any specific goals and is a welter of words. My criticism
is also levelled at the four Green Ministers who may
have promised progress, but who failed to deliver.
Neither can the proposal as it now stands be used as
propaganda material for young people, as Commissioner
Wallström stated. This is why it should be binned, and
the large majority of my group will support the
amendment of the Liberals to reject the common
position.
It is the political choice of the two large groups, the
Group of the European People’s Party and European
Democrats and the Group of the Party of European
Socialists. If they vote against and reject the amendment,
they too will be responsible for this weak and empty
concoction.
73
sustainably-produced and otherwise, the amendment to
which the GUE made reference, the European
Investment Bank, the chemicals policy along with the
substitution principle. Mrs Jackson, I have to get this off
my chest. These are not the inspired ramblings of a
Green mind, they are existing policy in Denmark and
Sweden, and even the new Danish government, that is
from the right-wing school of thought, has no intention
of changing this policy.
The amendments, which include a legal framework for
voluntary agreements between industry and the
European Commission, are all sound, but I have very
little hope that they will obtain the required 314 votes.
This means that, ultimately, the officials of the European
Commission will get their way, the same officials who
proposed the policy not to present a Sixth Environmental
Action Programme under any circumstances. This is
why this is a defeat for politics and for European
environmental policy. And the key culprit is the Group
of the European People’s Party and European
Democrats, prompted by certain officials from the
European Commission.
But it is still not too late. Tomorrow, we will vote, and I
hope that maybe some of the Christian-Democrats will
see sense and will be prepared to vote for a number of
sensible amendments, so that maybe we will end up with
a conciliation procedure, which will have some
substance at least and which will not merely be a welter
of words.
3-198
Blokland (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, ever since the
70s, we, in the European Parliament, have been in the
habit of using environmental action programmes to give
direction to environmental policy. This was very
relevant in those days, for we had to start more or less
from scratch. A great deal was subsequently achieved,
but I am now increasingly feeling uncomfortable. The
evaluation of the Fifth EAP has clearly shown that we
are up a blind alley. Partly because many Member States
have failed to implement environmental legislation, the
objectives of the Fifth EAP have not been achieved.
Since we are unable to draft a programme that adds
value to what we are already doing in the environmental
sphere, I wonder whether we should continue drafting
environmental action programmes. I will for this reason
support Mr Maaten’s amendment to reject the Council’s
common position. This is no reflection on the
rapporteur, Mrs Myller, or the Commissioner, Mrs
Wallström, but is about the Council’s role.
Let us now focus on the actual implementation of the
Fifth EAP. What will matter most are the
implementation of, and compliance with, current
environmental legislation, especially in the light of
enlargement.
3-199
Needless to say, the Greens will support all amendments
to improve the proposal. A one per cent reduction in
greenhouse gases annually, certification of wood,
Santini (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, presenting a
common position for second reading could be seen as a
purely technical, tactical move to bring us closer to
implementing the decisions. However, in this debate, as
74
many other speakers have said too, a number of key
points still have to be defined. Indeed, although the
Council has incorporated most of the amendments
adopted by the European Parliament at first reading, the
Sixth Framework Programme lacks specific working
time frames and its strategic objectives need to be
defined in more practical terms. We must not forget that
this programme will have to operate over a decade or so,
and so an approximate work schedule and poorly
defined aims are completely unacceptable.
In particular, the European Parliament’s latest
amendments call for more decisive, tougher action
against the danger of pesticides – this applies both to the
present Member States and those waiting to join the
Union – again, there must be a substantial effort to
combat the greenhouse effect, the increasing sound
pollution that pursues us all the time, wherever we go,
the too frequent environmental disasters caused by
human negligence, disasters for which it is becoming
increasingly difficult to find out who is responsible.
Lastly, once again, the European Parliament’s
amendments seek to make some of the proposals already
mentioned practical reality. I just want to summarise
them under at least four basic headings, four areas which
have been defined as priorities: climate change,
biodiversity, the connection between the environment
and human health, and waste disposal. These issues are
so vitally important that anything less than total
precision and total responsibility on our part would be
absolutely unacceptable, and we cannot put off dealing
with them to a later date as the Council seems to want to
do.
16/01/2002
it is said that the protection of the environment costs
money, one has first to bear in mind that, of course, the
destruction of the environment and its consequences cost
money, and that it is even worse when the destruction of
the environment is being subsidised – in other words,
when money is being paid out for it. There are
possibilities there for very effective savings. I therefore
emphatically support the idea of reducing subsidies.
The Committee has now decided on 2005 as a deadline.
A lot of people have problems with that, and not only in
our group. That is why there are various proposals for
compromise. I believe, though, that we must, whatever
happens, agree on an amendment that is more stringent
than what the Council has decided on. We should also
not put other economic instruments, such as a fiscal
reform, to one side, but should follow them through at a
European level.
3-201
Wallström, Commission.  (SV) Mr President,
honourable Members, it is an exciting journey that is
being undertaken with a proposal for a new Environment
Action Programme. It has been extremely instructive.
Clearly, a certain comfort has sometimes been found in
the fact that you have, at all events, had kind and
friendly things to say about both myself and the skilful
rapporteur.
Possibly we should have talked rather more about what
was expected from the Sixth Environment Action
Programme as early as when you questioned me. We
perhaps should have straightened this out at an earlier
stage, for I can see that this debate embraces many
incompatible and rather contradictory desires.
3-200
Liese (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to
thank the rapporteur, Mrs Myller, and also the shadow
rapporteurs, especially our group's own, for the work
done on this report. I consider neither the Commission's
proposal nor the report presented by the Committee on
the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy to
be worthless. I do not, therefore, quite understand the
proposal by the Group of the European Liberal,
Democrat and Reform Party and the Group of the
Greens that the proposal and the common position
should be rejected in their entirety. Another reason why
I do not understand it is that, if I understand rightly, the
Member States' environment ministers are not
exclusively Christian Democrats but, rather, primarily
Greens and also liberal Social Democrats and members
of our family of parties. To be sure, we often have to
criticise and improve what the Council submits to us but,
in view of this political constellation, it is somewhat
problematic to say that it is all nonsense. Despite our
criticisms, we have to improve on the Council's proposal
without completely rejecting it.
In particular, I would call upon us to produce some
stringent wording concerning subsidies that have
harmful effects on the environment. The Council's
wording strikes me as too weak. I believe that, whenever
We appreciate that a programme may be needed that
extends over a longer period because environmental
problems often arise after a certain number of years. We
also need a longer planning period if the measures we
take are to be the right ones. On the other hand, we
should of course very much like to draw up practical
measures and objectives because it is in that way that we
can put pressure on the Member States. We cannot,
however, just come up with credible objectives for a tenyear period. The programme states the overarching
objectives, and it is of course extremely important for us
to know that this is the direction in which we must be
moving. At the same time, we are concerned here with a
programme of action and of measures to be taken, and
that is what we have aimed at. We must state how we
intend to set about achieving the objectives, while the
practical objectives and deadlines must be incorporated
into, respectively, the thematic strategy and the various
draft laws and other proposals we submit during this tenyear period. The idea behind the programme was not,
then, just to continue with the same thing and add a long
list of legislative proposals to those which were already
in the Fifth Action Programme and which, moreover, as
Mrs Jackson quite correctly said, fail very often to be
implemented properly. That is something we must get to
grips with.
16/01/2002
It is, however, also important to emphasise what we in
actual fact agree about, that is to say the overall structure
and the priorities. It is a question of daring to say that
these four issues are the most important. It is also a
question of the underlying principles that are to govern
environmental policy during this ten-tear period and of
the need to consult widely and to have broad
participation in decision-making on environmental
issues. We agree on which issues are to be highlighted:
climate change, the natural environment and biodiversity, health and environmental measures, and the
issues of how we use our natural resources and dispose
of waste. We also agree that current legislation is to be
fully implemented in practice, that environmental
considerations are to be integrated into all other policy
areas and that legislators, decision makers and the
general public must have access to adequate
information.
The strategy for the next ten years is in actual fact based
upon the Fifth Environment Action Programme, which
has been developed by means of a description of how
environmental policy and its challenges have altered.
Current patterns of life and consumption, the way in
which goods are produced and the way in which we live
and operate as private individuals affect environmental
problems.
The environmental action programme is challenging. I
am aware of the fact and accept responsibility for it.
Even though there has been some tough criticism, I
believe it is right to dare to tackle something new and try
to find a new structure. For me, it was important to
design an environment action programme which
everyone, and not only the experts, can follow and
assess when new proposals are made and initiatives
presented, as was the case for example with the recent
climate package. That is why I do not of course agree
with rejecting the Council’s common position. Now that
we have carried out all this work, we ought surely to try
to complete it and help each other as far as possible.
In principle, the Committee on the Environment, Public
Health and Consumer Policy offers its unqualified
support for the general approach to developing future
environmental policy that forms part of the Council’s
common position. Of relevance here too are the
requirements that policy must be based upon
participation and dialogue and upon the best possible
scientific findings that are available. That means that we
must be very thorough in analysing the problems we
face, together with possible solutions, at the same time
as studying current research and making use of
indicators etc. In that way, we shall create policy
through solid work, and that will be in accordance with
the strategic orientation of this programme.
It also means, as I said, that it is meaningless to
introduce objectives and guidelines into the programme
more or less arbitrarily. At the same time, I want to
avoid possible misunderstandings and explain clearly
that I do of course support the use of clear objectives and
deadlines. Moreover, our proposals will include these,
75
and they must be discussed in both Parliament and the
Council. The few overarching objectives the programme
now contains are generally known, and so they should
be.
I am also, of course, able to approve the additional
objectives proposed by the Commission in its
communication on sustainable development prior to the
Gothenburg Summit, that is to say Amendments Nos 11,
15, 16 and 27. That is, however, on condition that they
faithfully reflect our communication. I cannot approve
the incorporation of other objectives into the
programme, as has been done in Amendments Nos 17,
24, 25, 26, 34 and 42.
It is also gratifying that the committee supports the idea
of, and proposal for, thematic strategies, together with
the proposed content of these. The committee has added
a proposal on the urban environment. This is to be found
in Amendments Nos 32 and 33, which are acceptable
overall. We thus have a stable platform for future work
and cooperation.
The problem is that the proposal that the strategies
should be ready to implement within three years is in
conflict with the requirement for best scientific findings
and for broadly based consultation and participation. We
should also remember that we have seven thematic
strategies to deal with. In the light, too, of Amendment
No 12, requiring all thematic strategies to be subject to
the co-decision procedure, this means that the
Commission must present all the thematic strategies by
no later than the end of the year so that there is time for
the co-decision procedure. We can perhaps meet the
deadline for some isolated thematic strategy, but
scarcely for all of them. That is why I would call upon
the European Parliament not to push this issue too hard.
Give us an opportunity to develop the strategies and to
put forward a package of measures that is best suited to
the current problems. We cannot therefore approve
Amendments Nos 12, 13 and 41, but I shall keep the
European parliament informed of our work on the
thematic strategies, and we shall submit oral reports each
year in order to fulfil the requirement in Amendment No
14.
I must inform Parliament that I am opposed to most of
the amendments concerning chemicals. The problem
with these is that there is no agreed definition of the
principle of indemnification. We should therefore
examine this carefully before we make it legally binding.
Naturally, I believe it has its part to play, but before we
make it legally binding we must arrive at a definition
which is tenable. Regarding the proposal that the
REACH Register should include all existing substances
and that all products, unlike substances and preparations,
should be labelled, all I can say is that it would be
practically impossible. We are nonetheless able in
principle to approve Amendment No 31 on the
coordination of the work involving chemicals and
pesticides, even if there is already such coordination.
76
16/01/2002
Regarding the issue of voluntary commitments and
agreements, we see these as part of an advantageous mix
of various political tools including, for example, legal
and financial tools. According to the OECD, there are
more than 300 agreements in the Member States of the
Community. They differ considerably from one another,
depending upon how flexibly they are adapted to
different situations and objectives. The Commission
plans to submit a communication examining the
potential of such tools. It is too early to determine what
the agreements under the programme will look like, and
we cannot therefore approve Amendments Nos 9 and 40.
There is general support from the Commission regarding
quite a number of other issues, for example sustainable
development and integration, measures affecting tax
rates at Community level, environmental crimes etc. In
addition to those I mentioned earlier, the Commission is
able to support Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 18, 19,
21, 39 and 45, together with parts of Amendments Nos
43, 46 and 47. I cannot however accept the other
amendments tabled.
We are close to reaching an agreement on the
Environment Action Programme for the next ten years.
Mrs Myller’s efforts as rapporteur at this second reading
have been much appreciated. No repetition of the debate
is required because her amendments have been carefully
selected, something which bodes well for the next step
in the procedure.
I hope that, on the basis of the amendments supported by
the Commission, the Council will adopt a positive
approach to Parliament's opinion so that those of us in
the Commission, the Council and Parliament, in
conjunction with other interested parties, can together
continue with our work on conserving and improving
our environment. Thank you for an interesting debate.
3-202
President. – Thank you, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.2
3-203
(The sitting was suspended at 7.10 p.m. and resumed at
9 p.m.)
integrated product policy [COM(2001) 68 – C50259/2001 – 2001/2117(COS)]
3-208
García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (ES)
Mr President, I must confess I was pleased to see you
come in, because I was practically under the impression
that I was going to be the only person in the Chamber. I
would also like to thank the Commissioner, who, after a
hard day, is here with us this evening.
The Green Paper on an integrated product policy should,
in my opinion, be the framework for the formulation of a
series of guidelines and proposals that will enable both
producers and consumers to make full use of the
instruments and opportunities offered by the market to
be able to make it function in a way that is better
adapted to the practice of sustainable development.
This new approach needs to be an improvement on the
traditional approach that the European Union has been
following up to now, which is essentially based on
encouraging environmental improvement in the
production sector through standards that establish limits
for pollution and also through voluntary instruments that
promote the differentiation of companies and products
that incorporate environmental improvements.
We have to admit, with regard to these voluntary
methods, which have been implemented since the early
nineties, such as the co-determination regulation,
European eco-audits and the ecolabel, that these have
not been as successful as had been hoped and, above all,
have not been implemented in a similar fashion in all
Member States. Only 3 200 companies throughout
Europe have obtained EMAS certification and only 350
products from 70 companies have these European
‘ecolabels’.
In my opinion, the main cause of this situation lies in the
rigidity of the system and the still weak consumer
demand for ‘green’ products. The Commission, aware of
this problem, has presented this Green Paper on
integrated product policy, with varying degrees of
wisdom and balance. It has been widely discussed in the
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and
Consumer Policy, but I, naturally, maintain that the
Commission has shown considerable dedication to the
matter.
3-205
IN THE CHAIR: MR FRIEDRICH
Vice-President
3-206
Integrated product policy
3-207
President. – The next item is the report (A5-0419/2001)
by Mrs García-Orcoyen Tormo on behalf of the
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and
Consumer Policy on the Commission Green Paper on
2
Appointments to parliamentary committees: see Minutes
Various mechanisms have been proposed with the aim
of stimulating the necessary environmental improvement
of products and their consumption. The proposal
contains a series of suggestions that would facilitate the
implementation of different policies and market
instruments that go further than those that focus
exclusively on the environment and that, I think, will
make it easier for a future White Paper to be more
detailed and better developed.
We are faced with the need to adopt a decisive approach
to stimulate environmental improvement in the EU
market, which will allow products to be given prices that
16/01/2002
are fairer from an environmental point of view, to
stimulate demand that is more appropriate and to make
the use of instruments for clean production more
widespread. Furthermore, I believe that this approach
will give greater impetus to the integration of
environmental policy in other areas, such as the
economic or social areas, and with this we will be better
able to fulfil the mandates of Cardiff and Gothenburg.
Though the amendments that Parliament has tabled, it
has brought a greater degree of precision and clarity to
the Commission proposal with regard to the orientation
of the IPP and also to the role of each of the actors –
companies, public authorities and consumers – and has
given very clear consideration to the issue of shared
responsibility without this involving a decrease in
producers’ responsibility, but instead taking into account
and also putting an emphasis on the responsibility of
both public authorities and consumers.
Public authorities, for example, can provide a very
important boost for a more environmentally friendly
market though public procurement. They can also point
out useful market instruments to put the IPP into
practice: economic instruments, such as tax incentives,
for example.
Similarly, the Parliament text highlights the importance
of an improved and enhanced eco-label, the need to
improve European standardisation processes, the need to
set parameters and indicators that are simple to apply
and similar in all Member States for the lifecycle of
products, not forgetting the need not to endanger free
competition in the market or in European companies.
The text also highlights the crucial role of information,
which should be clearer, more truthful and easy to
understand.
I think that I have accounted for the majority of
amendments tabled in Plenary. I have accepted them and
I have only rejected those that I feel do not fit into the
framework or context of a Green Paper. In my opinion,
this is a good proposal that deserves all our support.
3-209
Lucas (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the
Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and
Energy. – Mr President, while there are certainly
elements worthy of praise in the Green Paper, overall we
are left with the impression of a lost political
opportunity. The Commission has strong institutional
powers, which it could use to actively drive the IPP
process. Too often we are left with the impression of a
Commission that is a spectator rather than a powerful
actor.
We also need more joined-up thinking, more explicit
connections between the IPP project, the Sixth
Environmental Action Programme and the Strategy for
Sustainable Development. We would like to see those
links made much more explicit.
77
To summarise a number of the other concerns raised by
the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research
and Energy, we believe that the strategy tends to rely too
heavily on voluntary agreements. They clearly have a
role to play, but they are not a substitute for regulation;
they should be seen as complementary to it. At the very
least we need very clear benchmarks, objectives and
timetables for any voluntary agreements so that we can
ensure that they are working.
The Green Paper also focuses almost exclusively on
products rather than services and therefore misses
another whole raft of potential opportunities to green an
increasingly large area of our economies.
Perhaps one of the major shortcomings of the Paper is its
insufficient awareness of the broader international trade
context, under which, unfortunately, some of its
proposals would have questionable legality. The
effectiveness of the IPP strategy will be severely
curtailed unless the Commission explicitly recognises
the reforms that would be needed to the World Trade
Organisation in particular, to enable its measures to be
set out.
Similarly, with respect to public procurement, greening
public procurement is vitally important but there are
currently obstacles in achieving that which should have
been acknowledged more explicitly in the Paper, along
with strategies to address the problem.
It is very significant that in its opinion the Committee of
the Regions specifically refers to the restricted scope of
local and regional authorities for action when it comes to
green procurement and notes that legal action has
already been taken against a number of towns and cities
which have tried to implement a green procurement
policy. Those are the kinds of areas that need to be
changed. We look forward to an ambitious new White
Paper in the near future.
3-210
Santini (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, this report
walks a tightrope between the need to increase
production of consumer goods and services and
environmental protection requirements. I welcome the
Commission’s proposal and the rapporteur’s tough,
practical, calm handling of the subject.
Each product has a life cycle, which starts when it is
made available to the consumer. When the consumer
uses it, the product’s environmental sustainability – a
rather complex term although now universally
understood – immediately becomes part of the equation.
The relationship is delicate and it does not end with the
use or end, so to speak, of the product’s life. Indeed, the
most serious problems often arise when the product
ceases to perform its function and needs to be disposed
of, pensioned off, in other words eliminated from the
world in which it has performed its function.
It is at this point that the most critical environmental
implications come into play, for not all products can be
78
disposed of using the same technology, nor are they all
hazardous to the same degree or all biodegradable to the
same degree. That is why the Commission is proposing
an initiative which deals with the problem at source: if a
product is to be easy to dispose of at the end of its
lifecycle, this must be taken into consideration right
from the design stage, and this is where the greatest
merit of the report lies. Here, then, is the proposal to
create incentives to encourage initial research on how to
keep manufacturers better informed of the technologies
and raw materials available to this end.
The proposal does not overlook a factor which could
give rise to opposition from manufacturers: cost. The
text states in quite practical terms that, in addition to
encouraging the provision of aid to producers who will
face greater costs if they supply these biodegradable
goods, a pricing policy also needs to be established
allowing manufacturers to set different prices on the
market and, moreover, why not, allowing variable
taxation to be introduced as well.
In other words, those involved in protecting the
environment, who are therefore helping us, deserve
some support.
3-211
Müller, Rosemarie (PSE). – (DE) Mr President,
Commissioner, we manufacture products, but what do
we do with a product when its life cycle comes to an
end? The Green Paper is about answering this question
from an ecological point of view. So far, in my opinion,
we have been giving inadequate answers to this
question, with well-known consequences: substantial
detriment to the environment by production and the use
to which products are put, with associated detriment to
the health of workers and consumers.
Rather than carry on with this policy, we should get
serious about one that is integrated. In that way, we shall
be able to make financial savings and will not need to
eliminate environmental damage. For these reasons, too,
we need a strategy for the development of more
environmentally friendly products and services. The
report before us, completed by the amendments adopted
in Committee, provides a good framework for a product
policy on ecological lines. The Commission proposal for
the discussion process in Committee was of little help,
though. The statements made in this text were couched
in vague terms, there were no evident structures for
further action, nor was there any evidence of a
coordinated discussion process. I do not think that any
entrepreneur or consumer is going to be won over to an
environmentally friendly product by such a hotchpotch
of proposals.
The Commission must see to it that the statements made
in its forthcoming texts are of greater clarity. What is
important to my group is that the environmental costs as
a whole should be reflected in the prices of products.
Tax incentives should also be guaranteed so that
disadvantaged consumers can also buy environmentally
friendly products.
16/01/2002
European product standardisation must be involved to a
greater extent, and services should also be made subject
to environmental criteria. Another option for the creation
of a market for environmentally friendly products would
be, for example, the use of economic guidance
instruments. We should monitor their use and the effect
they have, and it is vitally important that we should
ensure that EU environmental legislation is not
neutralised.
In view of the unsatisfactory text produced by the
Commission, the rapporteur has done a good job, but
further action must not be limited to contributions to
discussion. We urgently need definite proposals for the
promotion of environmentally friendly products.
Producers and consumers must be made sensitive to the
various aspects of environmental quality. This report is a
start, but the real work on its content remains to be done.
3-212
Paulsen (ELDR).  (SV) Mr President, I must not be
especially critical, but try to look ahead to a future White
Paper rather than discuss the rather odd draft Green
Paper.
Within the safe food sector, where most of my work is
done, a ‘farm to fork’ principle, which is very effective
when attempts are made to legislate and to try to see the
connections, has now finally been arrived at following a
host of scandals and disasters. I should like the White
Paper to be based on approximately the same principle
so that each product can be traced and seen in its
context: finite or renewable raw materials, the supply of
energy, what form of energy is used, chemicals, the flow
chart for the product, logistics etc. This is especially
important for very large volumes of products, consisting
in actual fact of food, water and household chemicals.
These account for more than half of the consignments
transported on our roads and consume an incredible
amount in terms of resources, despite our perhaps not
even thinking of them as products. I am therefore
looking for a strategy in which everything is traceable
and in which we can track a product’s history, and for
principles that are valid whether we are talking about a
car or a packet of sausages for lunch.
3-213
Wallström, Commission. – Mr President, I would like to
thank Parliament for its resolution on the Commission's
Green Paper and just remind you that it is a Green Paper,
the start of the debate on integrated product policy. In
particular I would like to thank Mrs García-Orcoyen
Tormo being such a committed rapporteur on this
challenging and difficult issue. I would also like to thank
you for your speeches. I would agree with a lot of what
has been said during this short debate.
In reducing the environmental impact of products
throughout their life cycle, the objective of IPP is
fundamental to addressing our environmental problems.
For this reason IPP is a key measure within the Sixth
Environment Action Programme and the Sustainable
Development Strategy also underlines its importance.
16/01/2002
The difficulty we face is that there are so many products
on the market today, products that often have long
supply chains involving many different actors. Because
of this it is impossible to develop a "one size fits all"
instrument. Instead we need a variety of instruments and
exactly which ones depends on what is most effective at
each point in the supply chain. They can be both
voluntary and mandatory. I agree that voluntary
measures should be complementary and we should make
sure that they are not the only instrument used.
When thinking about IPP at European level, we should
also recognise the experience gained in several Member
States – Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Italy, to name
but a few- over the last few years. There is, therefore,
widespread acceptance of the concept and interest in it.
In 1999 the informal Environment Council asked the
Commission to come forward with a Green Paper on the
issue. I therefore delivered this paper to start the debate
on what form the European IPP should take. The
reactions to it from the 130 stakeholders who submitted
comments were generally positive, but what came back
was what has been reflected here, namely that it is
sometimes seen as being too fluffy and not really an
understandable concept. But it sounds nice, as they say,
and in general the opinions of the Council, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
were favourable as well.
The Green Paper suggested a strategy and tools for
making a European IPP a reality. Many such tools
already exist – public procurement legislation, European
eco-labels and EMAS, to name but a few. In other areas
we will have to be innovative and think of new
instruments. The Green Paper sought to canvas the
views of stakeholders on the way forward.
The Commission did this not just because it wanted to
develop the best possible policy, but also because IPP
needs the active involvement of all stakeholders to
succeed. Your resolution concludes this stakeholder
consultation process and will enable us to develop the
White Paper. From your resolution and the comments
from stakeholders it is clear that the White Paper needs
to start with concrete environmental problems. This is
what we have learnt from this discussion. Issues such as
climate change, hazardous chemicals and biodiversity
affect us all. If we take environmental problems rather
than instruments as our point of departure, we can better
convey the idea that IPP is more than just a collection of
tools, something that we perhaps did not do sufficiently
in the Green Paper. We have to link it to concrete
environmental problems to describe how to use these
instruments. This is also what Mrs Paulsen referred to.
These tools will still be important. We need to continue
developing them because we cannot address millions of
products individually. However, I too am coming to the
conclusion that we need to focus our actions on
particular products and sectors. You rightly make this
suggestion in paragraphs 24 and 25 of your resolution.
79
We will also need to set out the strategy for
implementing IPP and its advantages and the
Commission will need to consider carefully the
measures within IPP's scope as well as how it relates to
other policies. It is my intention to ask the Commission
to adopt this paper during the second quarter of this year.
3-214
President. – Thank you, Commissioner Wallström.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
3-215
Europe and Space
3-216
President. – The next item is the report (A5-0451/2001)
by Mr Alyssandrakis on behalf of the Committee on
Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on the
Commission
communication
to
the
Council
[COM(2000) 597 – C5-0146/2001 – 2001/2072(COS)]
and the European Parliament on Europe and Space:
Turning to a new chapter.
3-217
Alyssandrakis (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr
President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this
European Commission proposal is about developing a
space policy not at the level of individual Member States
but at the level of the European Union. It was drafted
together with the European Space Agency and proposes
three lines of approach: strengthening the foundation for
space activities, enhancing scientific knowledge and
reaping the benefits for markets and society.
The report by the Committee on Industry, External
Trade, Research and Energy welcomes these lines of
approach and acknowledges the overall benefit of
developing space activities. In fact, the development of
launch systems is prerequisite to any other space
activity. We can build in this sector on the experience
and technical know-how which the Member States have
acquired over several decades, especially from the
Ariane launch system.
The second line of approach is a perfectly natural one, in
that space is an ideal place for carrying out research
which cannot be carried out on earth, such as astronomic
research into radiation which cannot penetrate the earth's
atmosphere, research under conditions of zero gravity
etc.
The third line of approach is very broad and covers
everything we call space applications. These
applications range from satellite telecommunications to
navigation and earth observation systems and have
become an integral part of our daily life. I should like to
stress here that, if mankind is to benefit from space
activities, then space must not be used as a platform for
strategic competition. It is highly significant, in my
view, that the committee report emphasizes in the very
80
16/01/2002
first paragraph that space activities should only be
intended for peaceful purposes.
the final vote will be to the benefit of our nations and
mankind as a whole.
I am particularly worried by the amendment proposing
to add the phrase “which purposes may include strategic
applications within the context of peaceful operations”.
If we adopt this amendment, we shall be opening the
door to all manner of strategic activities in space,
provided they are cloaked in the mantle of a “peaceful
operation” and we have seen plenty of them on earth
over recent years. In short, this is a Trojan horse that will
change the tone of the report and allow all hell to break
loose.
3-218
I call on all my fellow Members to keep to the
Commission text. I also propose that they adopt
Amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 from Mr Souladakis’s
opinion. I must stress that taking a stand against the
militarisation of space is terribly important, especially
following the recent decision by the United States’
government to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Agreement and its insistence on developing the so-called
anti-missile shield. I tabled Amendment No 5 because I
wanted to put the implications of this action on the
record. May I also point out that, in my personal
opinion, certain aspects of the proposed GMES
programme involve strategic activities.
The application of space policy is also the subject of this
debate. The European Space Agency has operated on a
transnational basis on our continent for several years
now and has played a pivotal role in developing the
space activities of European countries. It is therefore
only natural that there should be close collaboration
between the European Union and the European Space
Agency and we have already reaped rewards from this
collaboration. The committee report notes the role of the
European Space Agency and proposes that it be
integrated into the European Union in the long term, but
without losing its independence. I must say that I
personally am against this. What worries me is that, if
this happens, the European Space Agency will lose the
independence which has helped it emerge as a global
player. International collaboration is a sine qua non in
the space sector and the committee report refers
favourably to it, stressing the need for international
collaboration to be developed not just with the Russian
Federation, the United States, China and Japan, but also
with less developed countries for which the European
Union could provide access to space.
Finally, I should like to raise the subject of funding. As
we all know, access to space has its rewards but does not
come cheap. Τhe Sixth Framework Programme for
funding research classifies space and aeronautics as a
priority sector. That may show willing, but it is not
enough. We do not just want a more general
commitment, we need a more general commitment.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,
today's debate is important to the future of the European
Union's space policy. I trust that the direction taken in
Souladakis (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common
Security and Defence Policy. – (EL) Mr President,
Commissioner, the Committee on Foreign Affairs has
examined the Commission proposal and basically agrees
with its approach. However, it notes that the CFSP is
dealt with as an economic and development issue rather
than as a defence and safety issue, with all that implies
for Europe. This is in all probability due to the fact that
the CFSP is still under development. In this sense, I
suppose that this proposal will mature at the next stage,
as far as foreign policy and defence systems are
concerned.
As far as the content is concerned, I have several
comments to make. First, there is a medley of policies in
the Member States, which need to be more or less
unified. Secondly, on the question of the strategic use of
space: the strategic use of space is unavoidable de facto,
but it must be used for peaceful purposes such as
Petersberg-type tasks. In all events, our committee is
opposed to the type of strategic mentioned in the famous
Star Wars policy. It will, nonetheless, need to be used
for missile interception installations in space and during
wars, which destroy satellites.
Having said that, I believe that we need to push forward
with this policy, on which we agree, our criteria being
that these methods must be used for peaceful
applications, policies must be unified and any action
taken must be integrated into a single European policy
because, in the final analysis, Europe must not be
dependent for its safety, communications and security on
the satellite systems of either the United States of
America or Russia. In this sense, quite apart from the
fact that this initiative is of interest from a development
point of view, it will also be of political interest and
must therefore be considered crucial to the common
foreign defence and security policy of Europe.
3-219
Radwan (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President,
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to
start by thanking Mr Alyssandrakis for the good work he
has done with us. Ever since Lisbon, we in Europe have
had the ambitious objective of being the best in the
world, and technology and science are of course part of
that, although I am not primarily thinking of the
electronic voting apparatus we tested yesterday, but of
advanced technologies such as, for example,
telecommunications, earth observation and ecology.
Europe must – as the past demonstrates – concentrate its
strengths in these areas. Airbus and Ariane, based in
Toulouse, are showpiece projects, demonstrating that
Europe, if it concentrates its strengths, is capable of
competing on a global scale. Industry is becoming ever
more concentrated, and what counts here is the creation
of European structures linking the European Union, the
ESA and the Member States, which will facilitate more
effective cooperation across the board.
16/01/2002
Thought should, though, also be given to international
cooperation beyond Europe. Here, I am thinking not
only of the USA, but also of Russia and China. Any
European research policy should of course be of the sort
that is also likely to attract the rising generation in this
sphere. I am myself from the aerospace industry and
have been given to understand that fewer and fewer
young people have been studying these subjects in the
last few years. We should be tackling that ourselves and
not looking to immigration as we do in other areas.
We also need clear objectives in this area, though; hence
the urgent request to the Member States to vote clearly
in favour of Galileo. Industry, too, should break new
ground here. It is important to the future that not only
State bodies should take on responsibility, but that
industry should also contribute to the development of
services that the citizens can use and that are also
capable of being marketed.
In conclusion, I would like to deal with an important
point that has been mentioned, namely the so-called
militarisation of space. I do not think that Europe should
be developing a ‘Star Wars’ programme, but I find the
idea of equating any military use of the infrastructure
with SDI highly dubious. After all, we do not speak of
the militarisation of telecommunications just because the
German Army uses the telephone. We want a European
foreign and security policy, we want a Rapid Reaction
Force, we send soldiers to other countries, and these
troops must receive the information they need. So we
should indeed be thinking at a European level about
becoming independent in this area and capable of using
our own infrastructure in the future, so that we can do
what our responsibility for our own soldiers and our
political responsibility in this area require of us. I
therefore ask for support for the amendment that Giles
Chichester and I have brought in. We really cannot talk
here in terms of an SDI; on the contrary, this is a
sensible use of the infrastructure in Europe's interests.
3-220
Ford, (PSE). – Mr President, I join my colleagues in
congratulating Mr Alyssandrakis on his report on the
Commission communication to the Council and
Parliament on Europe and Space: Turning to a new
chapter. This is not the first report that Mr Alyssandrakis
has drawn up on the subject of space and, I suspect, not
the last.
The Socialist Group will be supporting the report. We
believe that space has important civil and industrial
applications. Europe cannot afford to be sidelined.
Europe cannot afford to allow the US and the other
space powers – Russia, China and Japan – to leave us
behind. We need to develop further the technological
basis of space activities, in particular launchers, to move
eventually to European independence.
On the way to European independence we may have to
work with those trying to catch up with the US's
enormous lead. We therefore welcome the statement in
81
the report that space research is one of the priority
themes for the Sixth Framework Programme for research
and development. Europe, unless it gets an unequivocal
agreement with the United States that it can have access
on all occasions to the GSP system, will have to work
with others inside and outside the European Union, in
industry and government, to develop its own
independent system.
We can support the amendment from Mr Chichester to
the effect that we can include military applications for
peacekeeping purposes. At the same time we support the
rapporteur's own amendment, Amendment No 5, which
deplores the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty and deplores the development of national
missile defence, which we believe will trigger a new
arms race in East Asia.
To make our position absolutely clear, we are also
willing, if Amendment No 1 is passed, to support the
rapporteur's Amendment No 2, to the effect that we
believe space should be used to create peace rather than
conflict.
We do not see these as contradictory but rather as
establishing a limit beyond which we do not wish to go.
I hope that in the vote tomorrow we achieve what we
intend, as I have set it out this evening.
3-221
Lucas (Verts/ALE). – I would like to add my
congratulations to the rapporteur and to focus on just one
key issue in the short time that I have, namely the
dangers of the militarisation of space.
Many European citizens are deeply critical of the
proposed US national missile defence system, which
they rightly see as an offensive system which is certain
to start a new and costly international arms race. How
much more concerned would they be if they realised the
aims of some of their own politicians and legislators? I
do not mean people here, but there are others who have
ambitions to launch their very own, home-grown
European Union programme to militarise space. That is
what some people would like to turn the European space
programme into. We need to send a very clear message
with this report, to make it absolutely clear that any use
of space should be solely undertaken for peaceful
purposes and in accordance with international law. I
therefore welcome in particular the emphasis which Mr
Alyssandrakis has given to this in his report and
appreciate the amendments he has tabled to strengthen
these aspects still further.
It follows that I also very much regret the amendments
by the PPE Group, which again introduces that idea of
using space for military applications. Although I accept
that this has been put in the context of what are called
peacekeeping operations, I am still concerned that this is
the start of a slippery slope. I am very happy that Mr
Radwan does not want to see an EU Star Wars, but I am
very concerned that his intentions could be
82
misinterpreted: that other people could see peacekeeping
in a different context from the one that he sees it in.
We need to remember as well the context of the report
released by the European Space Agency in December
2000 in which the so-called Three Wise Men looked into
the future of ESA and concluded and I quote:
"Embarking on development of a European defence
system, including a space component, will provide a
significant part of European public investment." That
report went on to say: "We see it as logical to use the
capabilities of ESA also for the development of more
security-orientated aspects of European space policy."
All this adds up to the very real possibility that the
European space policy will adopt a very specific military
component and therefore it is timely and urgent to send a
message with this report that we want to keep space for
peace.
3-222
Chichester (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I add my
compliments to Mr Alyssandrakis for his report and the
work that he brings to this particular field of our
committee's activities.
My first observation is that the use of space for research
and for commercial applications is often overlooked in
the wider world because it is not as dramatically exciting
as projects like the Apollo moon landings, yet it is
extremely important, as this report emphasises. I
welcome the objectives set out in the communication for
European policy.
I confess I particularly like paragraph 10, which calls on
the industry to do more about commercial exploitation
of space. That is an important way ahead. We want
industry to be very much involved in the exploitation of
space.
It seems to me that this report is something of an
appetiser – or hors d'oeuvre – for the Galileo report,
which we will be considering next month in our
Strasbourg part-session. Paragraph 12 in particular refers
to Galileo as being part of the European strategy and to
its importance for transport. We should take careful note
of that.
We have to recognise the difficulties in obtaining
funding for space exploitation, space research, space
utilisation. I particularly welcome also the reference in
the report to the need for international cooperation
drawing in other powers and partners. I come back to the
question of using military applications for peacekeeping
operations. To be realistic, we need funding from
defence budgets for space projects in a number of fields.
We should not be frightened of drawing on that source
of funding for applications intended for peacekeeping.
That is very important to emphasise. I regret that Mr
Alyssandrakis has taken fright at my reference to
military applications. He should take more note of the
phrase "peacekeeping operations".
3-223
16/01/2002
Langenhagen (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President,
Commissioner, Galileo Galilei's words, ‘and yet it does
move’ can be applied to European space policy's present
situation. I have my doubts, though, when I see the
downright
interminable
tug-of-war
about
the
establishment of Europe's satellite navigation system,
Galileo. So I am all the more pleased that there are some
first positive signs that European space travel is to be
given new momentum, something that is urgently
necessary if Europe is not to lose its connection to this
important and forward-looking high technology sector.
Whether the systems we are working with are for
communication, navigation, or observation, satellites
play a decisive role.
We should not make the mistake of comfortably relying
on the existing systems of other, even friendly, nations.
We should rather be demonstrating our own capabilities
in this field, which is the only way that we will have
reliable operational freedom and that European industry
will have a chance of a healthy future.
I speak from my own experience, having on several
occasions been Parliament's rapporteur on the European
satellite navigation system. In Europe, the potential we
have in this field is so valuable, that we should not
simply leave it unused. ‘Tackle it!’ must be our
watchword. A political signal is indispensable.
The first stage on this road is the drafting of a coherent
strategy for space travel policy, and the Commission has
done very good work on this. I emphatically support the
proposed lines of action. Europe must accord space
travel more importance in future.
Let me sum up my priorities for European space travel
in a conceptual pairing that may perhaps seem
paradoxical:
independence
and
cooperation.
Independence means our own strength, autonomous
structures and jobs geared to the future. Cooperation, on
the other hand, represents the strengthening of the EU's
relationships through compatibility and exchange. Space
travel should be given new impetus.
3-224
Savary (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to
congratulate Mr Alyssandrakis on this excellent and
authoritative report, which urges us to put in place a
Community space policy. That said, given the progress
made on Galileo, I think that we are still a long way
short of the target and that we must not give up what we
already have for something far less certain. In other
words, the intergovernmental method is now proving
that it is working better than the Community method.
This is because, throughout the world, space
development cannot be achieved unless a number of
conditions are in place. First of all, we must not be afraid
of public support, funded from the public coffers. The
market can fund not everything…not American rockets,
not Russian rockets, not French rockets. Secondly, the
military funds a large part of civilian resources; let us
not beat about the bush. If we refuse to accept a dual
system, we will have great difficulty in launching the
16/01/2002
83
space industry in Europe, given that, as you have seen
with Galileo, the pacifism of this House is, at the end of
the day, a gift to American militarism. I think that we
must also have this set out very clearly in our minds.
The Americans said that they do not want Galileo
because it is incompatible on a strategic and military
level with GPS. Lastly, we must also have a genuine
industrial policy. However, I do not think that we are
fulfilling these conditions as yet. This is something that I
regret, but we must move in this direction if we
eventually want the European Union to be the space
power that it should be and that it must be if Europe
wants to maintain a high level of technology.
At the Laeken European Council, the representatives of
the Member States pledged to make the common
security and defence policy more operational. As the
report points out, if space activities are to be intended
only for peaceful purposes, this can include military uses
for peace-keeping activities, as requested in the
amendment tabled by Mr Chichester and Mr Radwan on
behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party
(Christian Democrats) and European Democrats.
As a final point, I would like to say that I think if we
want to move forward in this area, we must strengthen
our cooperation with those who want to move in this
direction and leave behind those who do not want to.
And this is not simply for the sake of Galileo, it is also
for the future of a European space policy.
Ladies and gentlemen, we must draw up a realistic and
consistent framework for our space policy. The
protection of the environment, the security of our people
and the preservation of peace all depend on this.
3-225
De Veyrac (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President,
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would
like to thank the rapporteur for this report, which
indicates the way forward that will enable us to open up
a new phase in European space policy. I wanted to speak
about space today because this is a subject close to my
heart and because I am lucky enough to live in Toulouse,
where, as Mr Radwan said, everything is connected to
aeronautics and space. Two of the world’s largest subcontractors in the space industry are based in Toulouse
and much of the work of the European Space Agency in
France is carried out in the National Centre for Space
Studies.
We all know that satellites are used for the protection
and observation of our environment, for risk prevention
and for the defence of our territory and are playing an
increasingly important role in our daily lives. The
benefits of a coordinated space policy are therefore
important to us and have already enabled progress to be
made in cooperation. As several Members have already
said, we must now step up a gear and put in place a
genuine European policy. As Mrs Langenhagen said, in
an area where it has immense potential, the European
Union must acquire the resources that make success
possible.
However, the fact that no decisions have been taken on
the future of the Galileo European satellite navigation
project is a regrettable example of what we must avoid.
Considerable investment has already been made and we
cannot allow ourselves to take this amount of time
before reaching an agreement, because we lose a little
more credibility each time this happens. But, I know, as
all of us in this House know, that you, Commissioner,
are making every effort to bring this project to fruition.
In March, the Transport Council is due to take a decision
on the future of Galileo and Parliament must bring to
bear its full weight so that this decision can be reached.
How can it be feasible for the European Union to
develop a common defence policy if it does not make
available the technical resources for this domain?
3-226
Martin, Hans-Peter (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I
would like to start by congratulating you on staying in
office. It is you that we have to thank for your constant
reference to religious values in the Convention on
Fundamental Rights and for your reclaiming of them.
The phrase ‘European values’ is often an empty one. It
could, though, be a quite different matter with this report
in our hands, because this report means that there is a
chance of Europe demonstrating, in a very important
area, that we do things differently to the others. We can
make outer space a space for peace. Then again, that has
a great deal to do with principles.
Here we have Amendment No 1, which says: ‘...which
can also include a military application for peace-keeping
operations.’ Space for peacekeeping operations – one
might polemically say, yes, but against whom? Against
the little men from Mars, who are on their way here, or
for the use – as Mr Chichester has hinted – of a militaryindustrial complex yet to be created in Europe? That
would be devastating. It would be precisely the
dependence on the military-industrial complex that so
much characterises the last remaining superpower that
we would be inviting in through the back door while still
talking of European values. That would be Pharisaical! I
would very much recommend rejection of Amendment
No 1, but the adoption of those following it. Particularly
when Christian and religious values are at issue, values
of which you, Mr President, have always rightly
reminded us.
3-227
Paasilinna (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, the USA
unilaterally withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile
Treaty. This happened after their own national
intelligence service stated that no missile threat from any
‘rogue state’ even exists, at least not for the next ten
years. According to the American press, the Republicans
in Congress pressured the intelligence organs to change
their stance and to create a baseless threat scenario. A
powerful missile shield is now being created in response
to this figment of the imagination.
84
Ultimately, nobody is safe from injustice and from the
terrorism which draws strength from this. September's
treacherous terror assaults show us where the true threats
to security lie. A missile shield will militarise space,
since antiballistic missiles operate in space. The result of
this will be a renewed arms race, but in response to the
USA's example we too are making a small decision on
principle here: in our opinion Galileo may be used for
military purposes in peacekeeping operations.
The people of this world need common security and
justice which applies to everyone. This must be the main
goal of the Union. The hunt for terrorists will never end
if we fail to remove the causes of uprisings and civil
rights struggles. The demilitarisation of space, which
was achieved with so much trouble during the Cold War,
is ending without any rational reason. There will always
be those who are ready to carry out absurd acts. Is it the
case that when the absurd act does not concern
individual structures, but the entire world, it becomes
more acceptable? When we worry just about our own
security, we are sowing the seeds of war.
3-228
Caudron (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner,
ladies and gentlemen, at the request of the Council, the
European Commission has produced a communication
on the need to undertake the rapid development of a
consistent space strategy in conjunction with the
European Space Agency. Like the rapporteur, Mr
Alyssandrakis, I welcome this and I also congratulate
him on his excellent work as rapporteur.
The Commission is proposing to strengthen the
foundations of its space activities by developing
scientific knowledge. The rapporteur stresses the need to
develop further the technological basis. In my view, all
this involves substantial public support, financial
support, although support, other than financial, may be
required.
The Sixth Framework Programme on Research, for
which I am the general rapporteur, meets this
requirement in part, by making space and aeronautics
one of its seven priorities and granting it a budget of just
over EUR 1 billion. In my report, I also proposed
measures to train researchers and engineers, both in the
field of space and in other areas, in order to resolve
problems relating to their mobility, which are
exacerbated by the physical distance between sites.
My last point is to mention the dangers of the
militarisation of space. There are risks, undoubtedly, but
I do not think that we can undertake military activities
when our goal is to prevent or to manage conflicts in
order to keep or find peace. Nevertheless, our priority
must be to develop further the use of space for purposes
of general interest and public service.
16/01/2002
Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to
congratulate Mr Alyssandrakis and thank him for his
clear and constructive report, and also to thank all the
members of the Committee on Industry, External Trade,
Research and Energy, as well as the members of the
various committees who have taken part in this debate
and who have been involved in this report.
I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate
today and to do so on behalf of the Commission, in place
of my colleague Philippe Busquin, with whom we work
very closely on the issue of space, especially in view of
my responsibilities in this area with the Galileo project.
The report you are debating today is an important
milestone in the history of European space policy, whose
development has recently been taken on board by the
Community institutions. It is the political support for the
work carried out by the Commission and the European
Space Agency within the framework of their joint
working group, work which is fully described in the
recommendations of the motion for a resolution. My
colleague, Philippe Busquin, has been working very hard
on this project, which I know will go towards fulfilling
Europe’s requirements for becoming the most
competitive knowledge-based society in the world by
2010.
My speech will focus on three points. The first is the
spirit of the European Space Policy, which is part of the
framework of a vision of a Europe that takes full
advantage of the potential of the knowledge-based
economy, especially through the creation of a true
European research area, in line with the spirit of the
Lisbon conclusions, which should also be the spirit in
Barcelona. A Europe, furthermore, that actively
encourages sustainable development, which, since
Gothenburg, has been one of the European Union’s
priorities. A Europe that is willing to involve its citizens
more in the decision-making process, thereby giving a
practical example of governance. This is exactly where
Parliament’s role is crucial, especially in explaining
technical issues, such as Space.
In addition to these general principles we need to
mention two specific aspects: firstly, the will to accept
the international dimension of space and our
responsibilities on the world stage, providing Europe
with the means it needs to be truly independent; and
secondly, the concern to work on maintaining peace and
to ensure the security of all European citizens.
At this juncture, I would like to point out – in response
to some concerns expressed by the rapporteur – the
resolute nature of the instrument for peace that is the
GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and
Security) initiative in the area of environmental
monitoring and safety.
3-229
De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, I would
like to start by congratulating you on your re-election.
The second aspect is the recent progress made in this
field, given that over the last year considerable progress
has been made in the area of space policy by means of
the communication that you are examining today and
16/01/2002
also the associated Council resolution. European Union
policy has taken account of the strategic importance of
space activity for Europe.
With regard to the specific progress made, I would like
to mention two fundamental stages. The first was the
creation of a joint Commission and Space Agency task
force, which resulted in a second communication. This
was presented at the end of 2001 to the European
Council, the Space Agency and Parliament. The second
stage is the joint preparation of a strategy for the
implementation of the GMES initiative. Within this
framework, an action plan has been prepared, firstly at
European Union level, then at European Space Agency
level, with the approval of an additional section at the
Agency Ministers’ Council.
In 2001, however, certain limitations came to light, for
example the lack of results obtained from the last
Council of Transport Ministers with regard to the
Galileo project.
I deeply regret that these delays have occurred and I
would like to once again state very clearly that, in my
opinion, there is no economic justification for calling the
viability of the project into question, although what
remains, ultimately, are doubts with regard to the
political will to go ahead with a project as ambitious as
the Galileo project. I hope that these doubts can be
allayed in the next few weeks and that by March the
Union will have made a positive decision, once and for
all.
The third aspect concerns the future. What, exactly, is
there left for us to do? The answer is, a great deal. In
order for Europe to fulfil its proper role in this regard, it
must establish close cooperation with all parties
concerned, especially with regard to a more operational
form of cooperation between the Commission and the
European Space Agency. In the short term, this involves
negotiating a framework agreement between these two
institutions to formalise cooperation between them and
to confer the role of organising the implementation of
the Union’s space programmes on the Agency. An
informal ‘Space Council’ will have to be convened at
some stage, that brings together the Research Council
and the Council of the European Space Agency.
In the medium term, it is proposed that the Councils of
the Union and the European Space Agency, as well as
the European Parliament should decide on space policy,
on the basis of the guidelines provided by the Heads of
State and Government. However, in the longer term and
specifically within the framework of the debate that is
due to start shortly on the future of the Union, the
European Space Agency, and space policy in particular,
must also be reflected in the Treaty itself.
85
field in the form of a task force in which national
political leaders will participate in the area of regulation.
Another issue is that of full convergence between the
report by the think tank’s task force and Parliament’s
point of view, with regard to the need to carefully study
the situation of competition on a world scale and to
adopt appropriate measures, especially with regard to
launch pads. We are also very interested in the idea of
organising an international conference to explore
opportunities for cooperation. As Mr Alyssandrakis is
well aware, we are already cooperating very closely with
Russia.
Finally, generally speaking, the Sixth Framework
Programme should make progress in the direction
proposed in various recommendations, because for the
first time, the subject of space is one of the priorities of
this framework programme, but also because the
European Space Agency will, for the first time, be able
to participate in the programme as a partner with full
rights.
Ladies and gentlemen, the report that you are going to
adopt represents a substantial and powerful boost for the
efforts to implement an authentic European Space
Policy. The success of such an undertaking requires the
mobilisation of all of those involved and strong support
from all of you here today.
I would like to say – along the same lines as some of the
other speakers, such as Mr Savary and Mr Caudron –
that we cannot block the necessary capacity and
presence of the European Union with regard to space
technologies on the pretext that certain types of project
could have a dual usage. It has been clearly stated that
the objective of the GMES initiative is peace, and that
the initiative is not financed from budgets, nor from
funds with military financing and uses. In fact, quite the
opposite is true, and this holds for the Galileo project
too.
Simply avoiding taking part in the space race for the
sake of peace will not prevent space, which is already
partially militarised, from becoming more so. We must
have a firm will to be in space with the criteria of the
European Union in mind: to see space used for peaceful
purposes for the benefit of mankind as a whole.
3-230
President. – Thank you, Commissioner de Palacio.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
3-231
Road Transport
3-232
Before drawing my conclusions I would like to make
some comments on a number of recommendations
outlined in the Alyssandrakis report. I would like to
focus specifically on the issue of frequencies. A
European coordination mechanism is being set up in this
President. – The next item is the Joint Debate on the
following reports:
- (A5-0437/2001) by Mr Hatzidakis on behalf of the
Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
86
on the Council common position for adopting a
European
Parliament
and
Council
directive
[9068/1/2001 – C5-0433/2001 – 2000/0060(COD)]
laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within
the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in
national and international traffic and the maximum
authorised weights in international traffic,
- (A5-0469/2001) by Mr van Dam on behalf of the
Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
on the Council common position for adopting a
European Parliament and Council regulation amending
Council Regulations (EEC) No 881/92 and (EEC) No
3118/93 for the purposes of establishing a driver
attestation
(10353/1/2001
–
C5-0473/2001
–
2000/0297(COD), and
- (A5-0430/2001) by Mr Grosch on behalf of the
Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
on the proposal for a directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council [COM(2001)56 – C50037/2001 – 2001/0033(COD)] on the training of
professional drivers for the carriage of goods or
passengers by road.
3-233
Hatzidakis (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President,
Madam Vice-President of the Commission, when I
started working on this report, I thought I would be able
to wrap it up in no time at all. In the end, it was far more
complicated than I had imagined, but today we are on
our way to an auspicious ending and that is what counts.
16/01/2002
have no problem there. The last amendment allows rigid
buses of up to 13.5 metres to have two axles. Buses
between 13.5 and 15 metres long must have three axles,
in order to avoid exceeding the maximum weight per
axle. This amendment too was accepted. Only the part of
this amendment defining "rigid" was not accepted, but
this is a merely terminological question. It should be
noted that the common position adopts the
Commission's proposal to use the new manoeuvrability
criteria which are in the process of being adopted within
the Economic Committee for Europe of the United
Nations in Geneva.
Portugal and the United Kingdom, I would remind you,
may ban buses from their territory which do not comply
with the old, stricter manoeuvrability criteria for up to
three years after the directive enters into force.
Similarly, Member States are allowed to impose local
restrictions on the use of extra long buses for safety or
other reasons. I am referring here to Article 7 of the
common position, which the committee discussed at
length. This should largely meet the concerns expressed
in some amendments rejected at second reading in the
Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism.
Consequently, it is clear from all this that there is
nothing left for me to do but to propose, as the
Committee has done, that Plenary adopt this common
position without amendment, since it strikes a
reasonable balance between internal market, regulatory,
safety, technical and commercial considerations.
3-234
The aim of this proposal for a directive is to harmonise
the maximum length of both rigid and articulated buses
when undertaking transport throughout the European
Union. Until now, this matter has not been regulated
explicitly; there was only the guarantee that rigid buses
of up to 12 metres and articulated buses of up to 18
metres could circulate freely in the European Union. At
national level, for example, there are 4 different
maximum lengths for rigid buses, meaning that some
buses are unsuitable for EU-wide use, thereby distorting
competition. The Member States wish to harmonise
these maximum lengths, at least for buses used
throughout the European Union, and have asked the
Commission to work out a proposal.
I should like to remind the House that Parliament
adopted 3 amendments at first reading. In the first
amendment, it proposed extending the date until which
Member States may authorise buses with dimensions not
complying with the requirements of the new directive to
circulate on their territory from December 2009, as
proposed by the Commission, to 2015, in order to allow
a normal economic life for those buses. The Council
proposed stretching this date even further until
December 2020, a modification the Committee on
Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism agreed with
fully. With the second amendment, the European
Parliament proposes the same length of 18.75 metres for
articulated buses, as for buses with trailers. The common
position also accepted this amendment so of course we
van Dam (EDD), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, the
proposed regulation introducing a driver attestation
requires all drivers in the employ of transport companies
within the European Union to carry a standardised
document. As a result, it would be a simple matter for
inspectorates across the EU to verify whether the
relevant driver is employed correctly, that is to say in
accordance with current, national social legislation rules.
At the moment, such inspection is difficult to implement
outside national borders due to varying regulations and
documents.
Parliament has backed this initiative at first reading. It
was noted, however, that this proposal could not be
expected to be a universal remedy. After all, there are
also bilateral, international and ECMT licences, by
means of which drivers from outside the European
Union can legally work in a certain way in the European
Union. For a number of businesses, the dividing line
between the legal and illegal deployment of these drivers
does not seem clear enough. Consequently, this proposal
only applies to drivers who are employed by EU
businesses and who drive lorries from these businesses.
However, Parliament was of the opinion at first reading
that the proposal should be subject to a phased
introduction for non-EU drivers and EU drivers on
account of the administrative measures which Member
States would be required to take. With this, Parliament
demonstrated that it had an insight into the situation in
16/01/2002
the sector, where non-EU drivers form the key problem,
at least judging from the number of complaints about
these practices. This is why Parliament has opted for a
two-year delay before the regulation enters into force for
EU drivers. In addition, Parliament was of the opinion
that the data to be included in the attestation should also
comprise the driver’s licence number and social security
number. In its common position, the Council has shown
widespread endorsement of Parliament’s views. It
recognises the issues described and deems the attestation
at least to be a constructive element in solving existing
distortions of competition in international road transport.
Of Parliament’s amendments, the Council has only
directly adopted the amendment on the inclusion of the
driver’s licence number and social security number. The
amendments on a phased introduction for non-EU and
EU drivers have not been directly adopted by the
Council. The Council does accept a phased introduction
but does not yet wish to establish the ultimate date on
which, based on data currently available, the proposal
becomes effective for drivers from the European Union.
The proposal should not enter into force for EU drivers
until it transpires that this would actually add value,
based on an assessment of the regulation in force at the
time. In addition, the Council has given an interpretation
of the inspection percentage (20%) of the number of
attestations issued.
As rapporteur, I have to conclude that the positions of
the Council and Parliament are not miles apart. Both
recognise the nub and urgency of the problem: non-EU
drivers. This is the group, therefore, that should come
under this regulation as soon as possible. Both the
Council and Parliament agree on this. As far as EU
drivers are concerned, I should like to note that – on the
basis of data available – the situation is far less urgent.
The evaluation established by the Council seems to be a
useful tool for bringing more data to light. However, I
am of the opinion that it is very desirable to settle on an
end date for this evaluation. This is why I am very
impressed with Commissioner de Palacio’s written
pledge to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport
and Tourism to commission the relevant evaluation
within three years. I trust that she will orally confirm this
assurance during this sitting.
All in all, I think that Parliament can be satisfied with
the text that is now before us. I would therefore like to
recommend that, together with the Commissioner’s
pledge, it be adopted without any amendments .
I should like to finish off with a remark about the report
by Mr Grosch. I endorse the report, but it is vital that the
candidates be adequately tested after each training
course and that daily practice be included in continuous
training. If we prescribe that it is on the basis of national
standards that each driver must be trained, this will
promote so-called ‘student tourism’, which is exactly
what we want to avoid.
3-235
Grosch (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President,
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt
87
that the liberalisation of road transport has brought us in
Europe greater choice and better prices. Competition has
also correspondingly become more intense, which has
necessarily also led to the tendency for safety and work
conditions to lose out in many businesses.
The directive now before us on the training of
professional drivers for the carriage of goods or
passengers by road is intended to be, in essence, a
protective measure and to improve the situation of these
drivers. Not only technological developments but also
more stringent environmental and safety requirements
seem to us to make a sufficient case for, on the one
hand, improving their training and, on the other, needing
to add to this through continuous training on a regular
basis.
In the many discussions we have had with the industry,
we have also, however, established that shortages in the
labour force must not result in this directive having a
restrictive effect. A reason why I also wish to thank all
the groups, who played a very constructive part in this
dialogue, is that the Committee accordingly attempted to
introduce proposals for amendments which were not
intended to completely change the Directive, but to
make it a bit more flexible. For one thing, we created a
sort of bridge to the driving licence, being aware that, in
many Member States, training leading to the award of a
driving licence already imposes certain conditions
equivalent to the training requirements we are
proposing. So it seems important to us that the training
should be gone through without being duplicated, once
for the driving licence and again in professional training.
The same philosophy applied to the training objectives.
Our concern was not to lay down every detail, but only
the training objectives in general terms and thus to leave
them in the Annex, because this makes possible the
flexible use of these training objectives and leaves open
the possibility of adapting them in the light of future
developments.
Training at present varies from one country to another,
and we have accordingly laid it down that countries can
revise the details in consultation with the Commission.
The objective is that training should be equal. This
Directive is not intended to alter any training already
provided by a country.
Continuous training appears to us to be an important
issue as regards further development, and we hope that,
here too, a bridge to the driving licence may be created,
because we see continuous training for the driving
licence as also constituting a significant element at a
later stage.
We have also opted for flexibility in the form of seven
hours' continuous training, in other words, one day,
rather than for larger units, in order not to impose a
burden on businesses. We have not, I think, gone over
the top with one day, representing 0.05% of an
employee's labour input.
88
I personally also insist firmly that there should be
flexibility about the training centres. If we are to speak
in terms of mobility in Europe these days, the training
centre is not necessarily to be tied to the business or to
where the driver lives. If this certificate is to be valid
right across Europe, it should also be possible to train
anywhere in Europe. In this, we are also aware of the
fact that this may well be an interesting and important
Directive, but that, unfortunately, not all the problems
have yet been solved. Mr van Dam has just mentioned
the bilateral authorisations, which are still valid in
Europe, leaving room for misuse in this area. We know
too that certain businesses continue to avail themselves
of the possibility – something I rather regret about Mr
van Dam's report – that we will limit this standard
driver's certificate to the countries that are not members
of the EU. For there are excesses in these areas within
the Fifteen Member States too. I do not want to name the
firms involved, but some names in this field are well
known to us.
I would like to conclude by saying that all this could
form an integrated whole if, tomorrow, we were to gain
a standard driver's certificate, a directive on journey
times and rest periods, a card to confirm these and then
also this Directive on driving licences and the training
needed today. This could be readily monitored; hence
our appeal for improved monitoring, not only to the
Commission, but especially also to the Member States.
Any Directive, no matter how good it is, can only be of
value if it is regularly monitored – monitored, moreover,
to an equal degree in each and every Member State.
3-236
Simpson (PSE). – Mr President, firstly I should like to
congratulate our three rapporteurs – Mr Hatzidakis, Mr
van Dam and Mr Grosch – for the work they have done.
The level of knowledge of the members of the
Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
never ceases to amaze me, in regard to technical details
such as the number of axles on buses, turning circles of
buses, and so on and so forth. I am grateful to them for
their work. As far as the PSE Group is concerned, in
relation to Mr Hatzidakis' report, we are happy with the
common position and the same goes for Mr van Dam's
report. We will be voting accordingly.
Regarding Mr Grosch's report, I welcome the directive
because it recognises that we now have an opportunity to
improve road safety. Working conditions for drivers
have direct economic but also safety implications. By
proposing a training regime for professional drivers we
will be enhancing the status of those drivers. It is also
important to recognise that in light of enlargement these
provisions will have to be incorporated into legislation
by the candidate countries. I know many Member States
include driver education in their basic education system,
but for those that do not, this directive will make it
possible for all drivers to receive proper training.
The issue of subsidiarity was raised in committee and
indeed is raised again in plenary through a number of
amendments. My group believes that the compromise
16/01/2002
position that we reached in committee, with the help of
our rapporteur, Mr Grosch, enables the directive to offer
mere guidelines and therefore negates the need for
subsidiarity. My group will therefore be voting against
most amendments that advocate this principle and in
support of the rapporteur's position. We will also vote in
favour of Amendment No 43, which proposes an
assessment of the effectiveness of this directive and vote
against other amendments that try to be too prescriptive.
We are, in short, agreeing with the rapporteur.
I thank all the rapporteurs for their work and
congratulate them all on producing three well-balanced
reports.
3-237
Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR). – (NL) First of all, I should
like to thank the three rapporteurs for the volume of
work they have carried out. I should particularly like to
congratulate Mr Van Dam on the important work he has
done. The St. Gothard tunnel accident made it clear that
common European legislation is very necessary and
urgently required so that tough action can be taken
against illegally employed drivers who do not carry the
necessary paperwork. However, whether attestations will
be sufficient will become evident from the evaluation. I
should also like to congratulate Mr Grosch on his report.
This too stresses the need for prescribing uniform
requirements for drivers, because this is a typically
transnational profession. In the final analysis, what
matters is safety and fair competition on the roads and,
in this light, it is of the utmost importance for each
driver to have had adequate training before they use the
public roads, and for them to be able to specialise and
receive continuous training, and for the requirements to
be equivalent in all Member States and accession
countries. This will also afford the profession more
standing, which is very important, and will also make it
more appealing. For the Liberals, it is essential for what
has been learnt also to be tested properly by an
independent body. However, a certain degree of
flexibility and pragmatism will be required. The duration
of the training, as proposed by the Commission, is
unnecessarily long and would have an inhibiting effect.
Furthermore, a proper exam will provide far more
certainty that the driver has actually learnt what he
thinks he has learnt. However, the flexibility which Mr
Bradbourn and others would like to build in is excessive
in our view. We are unable to back the majority of the
amendments because they would, in fact, render the
regulation superfluous and the exam ineffective, and we
should thus be overshooting our target.
3-238
Bouwman (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President,
Commissioner and rapporteurs, ladies and gentlemen, I
should like to take the opportunity briefly to point out
that, in fact, in a very short space of time, we have
slowly but surely put together a package consisting of a
number of reports. These reports are not only those
before us but are also those on the organisation of
working hours, whereby the working hours for
employed, but also for self-employed, drivers have been
reduced from an average of 60 to 48 hours. In this
16/01/2002
package, we have drawn on our concern for safety, the
environment and efficiency to still try to get a number of
proposals adopted in order to improve the whole
environment of freight transport by road, as well as the
role which the driver plays in this. Reference has already
been made to accidents which happen on a regular basis,
also involving people from third countries who do not
carry the paperwork.
With regard to the report by Mr Van Dam, I should like
to note that we really have been in a position to
implement this in a relatively short space of time, and
that is why I should like to support his attempts to
prevent another round of amendments so that we can roll
up our sleeves at the earliest opportunity, in the
knowledge that there will undoubtedly be a number of
flaws which will be picked up during the evaluation
which will take place within three years – at least, I
assume that this promise will be confirmed shortly. I
also endorse the comments by Mr Brian Simpson that
the way in which subsidiarity is being used by Mr
Bradbourn in his amendments is not actually the way in
which we should be working at the moment. As the
Group of the Greens, we shall resolutely vote against
this approach. I should like to finish off with a word of
thanks to rapporteur Hatzidakis and, obviously, Mr
Grosch. Mr Hatzidakis, this was a technical amendment.
These are the kinds of reports which we passed on to the
then chairman with great pleasure, and I wish you every
success in your next job in this transport environment.
3-239
Vatanen (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President,
Commissioner, we are now discussing three proposals
concerning road transport, which are not in themselves
the most exciting topics to the general public.
Consequently, few political points can be scored. But
even small steps are necessary in order to ensure flexible
transportation. I thank those who have drafted the
reports for their splendid work and, for example, Mr
Grosch for his positive and constructive attitude to his
colleagues’ proposals for amendments. With regard to
Mr Hatzidakis's report, it is particularly satisfying that
the Council is now permitting the use of old buses until
the end of their economic life. Anything else would of
course be a senseless waste of resources.
As far as dimensions are concerned, I would like to
mention the situation regarding lorries. Finland and
Sweden allow lorries which are larger than normal. We
allow lorries six and a half metres longer than elsewhere
in the EU. These dimensions should definitely also be
adopted for use throughout the entire area of the EU. If
this procedure were followed, the load carried by lorries
would be increased from forty tonnes to sixty tonnes.
The advantages here are obvious even to the layman.
Space would be saved on our congested roads, since two
Finnish lorries are the equivalent of three lorries from
elsewhere in Europe. Continental Europe could from
time to time take a lesson from Nordic pragmatism. The
combination of improved traffic flow and the economy
of scale would lead to a cleaner environment. This is
precisely what is announced in the Transport White
89
Paper; merci, madame Palacio Vallelersundi. Therefore I
ask the Commission to respond in this matter and to
consider a proposal along these lines.
It should be remembered that road transport is far and
away the most important mode of transportation in
Europe, which in addition to everything else offers doorto-door service. The railways, which, sad to say, work
poorly, must of course be improved. The fact that
icebreakers travel more quickly than goods trains is
absurd (not that Finnish icebreakers are particularly
slow!). The last thing we should do, however, is to throw
a spanner in the works for road transport. The dynamism
of Europe depends on a flourishing economy, and the
lifeblood of this is effective road transportation. By
standardising provisions we can ensure fair conditions
for competition, not only between forms of
transportation but also between Member States. I believe
that these proposals are a step in the right direction.
3-240
Pohjamo (ELDR). – (FI) Mr President, I too wish to
thank our colleagues for their fine drafting of the reports
concerning road transport. These actions will improve
traffic safety, and this is an important matter.
A reasonably balanced common position on the
maximum authorised dimensions for vehicles has been
achieved, as the rapporteur Mr Hatzidakis stated.
Extending the transitional period makes it possible to
make sensible use of the current stock of buses until the
end of their life-span. The time made available for this is
now truly sufficient. Technical development offers the
opportunity to use increasingly longer vehicles, while at
the same time also taking safety factors into
consideration. Standardising the maximum lengths of
buses will also reduce distortions of competition.
The adoption of a standardised driver's certificate will
promote fair competition in the sector and will also
improve traffic safety. Applying the Regulation solely to
the drivers of third countries, at least in the first phase, is
justified.
This third report on standardising the professional
training of drivers for the carriage of goods or passenger
vehicles by road may both promote traffic safety and
improve the status of drivers. At the same time it will
also be possible to raise the prestige of the sector and to
increase its attraction to young people. This, too, is an
important matter. It is also worth noting that a better
mode of driving will also spare the environment. The
basic training requirement for drivers must not however
prevent existing drivers from returning to the sector.
Account is taken of this in the report. Participation in
training must be as flexible as possible. The training
programme must be drafted in such a way that the length
of one course section should be at least seven hours.
Most important, however, is to ensure that the training
makes it possible to truly improve the professional
competence of drivers, exactly as Mrs Sanders-ten Holte
recently emphasised here.
3-241
90
Langenhagen (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President,
Commissioner, every day we read newspaper reports of
major accidents on Europe's roads, caused by lorries
with over-fatigued, over-worked and inexperienced
drivers. Who among us does not shake his head and
wonder how such a thing is possible on our roads at the
beginning of the 21st century? The quality standard for
road transport in the EU can and must be increased –
there is no doubt about that. The driving profession, with
the ever-increasing demands made upon it, must be built
up and made more appealing. The safety of road
transport must also be improved. It remains to be seen
whether the option that the Commission is proposing
here will indeed improve the situation. In my view, the
directive before us will achieve no decisive added value.
Training is inherently to be welcomed and is
advantageous to the profession, but the driving test
means that every driver, even today, has to demonstrate
more than just a comprehensive knowledge of the
Highway Code. ‘Swept twice keeps cleaner longer’, they
say back where I come from, but there is no clear and
compelling logic to the way the Directive now – as I see
it, unnecessarily – requires double the course content in
many areas. Here is a crucial example. There is in
Germany already a real training scheme for professional
drivers, which takes three years, so, in comparison, the
time required, referred to in the title of the Directive and,
incidentally, reduced further by the Council, can only be
described as basic vocational training. Nothing more can
be achieved within a time limit of 140 hours.
I mentioned added value, yet, when I consider the details
of the regulations under consideration, what I perceive at
several points is more of a deterioration. An eighteenyear-old is now supposed to be allowed to drive a fortyton lorry with a hazardous load across the Alpine passes
– and that after only a few hours' basic training! That
cannot be what the originator had in mind. We need the
profession of driver to be enhanced; that is what the
Directive is meant to do. There is, though, a need for
improvement as regards safety on the roads. Perhaps
everything would be much better, if we had, at long last,
a new tachograph.
16/01/2002
principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let
there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely
necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive
as an example of how short and precise an overall
provision on European buses should be.
What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate
all other directives on European buses, thus enabling
countries and nations to have buses of a design
appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in
Sicily's hot climate has to look different from a bus in
London's rush hour or a bus that has to cover great
distances in northern Finland. This is where
harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and
calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the
Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about
which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which
need standards to be laid down. We have excellent
standards committees, but only where they are
absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.
3-243
Helmer (PPE-DE). – Mr President, these proposals for
the training of heavy goods vehicle drivers are, like
much of the legislation adopted by this House, totally
unnecessary. All we need is the mutual recognition of
national qualifications, possibly underpinned by a loose
framework directive, to ensure minimum standards,
especially with regard to third-country nationals.
However, what we have is a typical piece of EU
legislation: intrusive, prescriptive, vastly expensive. It is
a Christmas tree on which we have hung our wish list of
expensive baubles. Environmental issues are important,
but they have no bearing on the ability to drive a truck.
The proposals for training on a healthy diet have already
attracted widespread ridicule in the British press. Asking
the British trucker to give up his sausage and eggs is like
inviting the Pope to a disco – it simply makes us look
absurd. But we are inviting worse than ridicule. In the
UK alone these proposals are estimated by the industry
to cost over EUR 200m a year in a business already
under great stress. The time commitment for training
required of the individual owner-operator is
unsustainable and will drive hundreds out of business.
3-242
Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner
de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a
directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of
course, not only about weights, but also about
dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading
announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at
issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to
expand on it as a matter of course.
I have already for some time now been following with a
critical mind developments on European buses, because
this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a
European level.
We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the
end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual
recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the
In this House we constantly pay lip service to the needs
of SMEs, yet again and again we ignore their concerns.
We talk about the problem of unemployment, then we
pass directives that destroy jobs. These proposals form
part of a concerted attack by the Commission on the
road haulage industry.
I should declare an interest: my stepson is a truck driver
and he and his colleagues are aghast at these proposals. I
have studied them in vain for a realistic business impact
assessment. We are looking at huge costs, huge damage
to the industry – especially to small businesses – and
huge damage to European competitiveness. A further
impediment to the achievement of the Lisbon objectives,
and all for what? For benefits which at best are vague
and speculative. I urge colleagues to reject the Grosch
report. Let us stand back for a moment and consider the
16/01/2002
huge damage we do as we create a torrent of onerous
and unnecessary legislation.
3-244
De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, ladies
and gentlemen, we are discussing three reports, or to be
more precise, three legislative proposals that aim to
improve road safety and guarantee better a smoother
operation of the internal market.
I would like to congratulate Mr Hatzidakis on his
excellent work as rapporteur on the report on the
maximum authorised dimensions in national and
international traffic and the maximum authorised
weights in international traffic, and on his work on
achieving an agreement at the end of this process. I
would like to express my satisfaction, because the
report’s conclusion manages to find a reasonable balance
between the internal market, regulation and safety,
without
forgetting
technical
and
commercial
considerations. In fact, this was the intention of the
Commission when it proposed the initiative and, I
would, therefore, like to thank Parliament for adopting
the common position, which the Commission fully
supports without amendment given that, in practical
terms, it incorporates all the amendments adopted by
Parliament at first reading and introduces other slight
modifications to the Commission’s initial proposal.
Now that I have thanked Mr Hatzidakis for his work, I
would like to also thank Mr Van Dam for the work he
has done and tell him here and now that the Commission
intends to draw up an evaluation report over three years,
as soon as the Regulation enters into force. I hope that,
with this, Parliament will be able to vote on the basis of
the Council common position and bring the matter to a
conclusion, which will allow us to embark upon a more
focused battle for employment and to regulate the
situation of third country nationals employed as drivers
by EU transport companies.
Lastly, I would like to refer to the training of
professional drivers for the carriage of goods or
passengers by road. I would like to thank Mr Grosch,
who has drawn up the last report on road transport that
we are debating today and say that the report and its
explanatory statement show that the European
Parliament shares the point of view of the European
Commission on the importance of this proposal, even
though it is a technical proposal. The measures proposed
allow for a complete package to be introduced in the
area of training and assessment of bus and truck drivers
to establish minimum requirements.
Mrs Langenhagen, this is not an obligation to reduce the
amount of professional training given in particular
countries, it simply seeks to establish minimum
requirements that must be met in all countries.
There is, therefore, no need to alter the three-year
requirement currently in force in Germany. In fact, the
opposite is true, given that this is in excess of the
minimum stated in the Directive. What is really needed
91
is for all German drivers, not just the minimum number,
as is the case today, to take up and complete this
training. The objectives are to raise the quality of
professional drivers and standards in road transport in
general and to guarantee positive results in terms of road
safety.
Generally speaking, we can accept the majority of the
amendments, making a few alterations here and there,
but some of them, on the other hand, we are bound to
reject. For example, Amendments Nos 25 to 41, which
aim to make the initiative the sole responsibility of the
Member States. We should not forget that only 5% of
Community bus and goods vehicle drivers currently
benefit from professional training. Just 5%.
This proposal is, therefore, essential in order to improve
this situation, and only Community legislation to make it
mandatory can fulfil this objective. These amendments,
however, would lead to reduced safety standards and a
clear distortion of competition. In particular, with regard
to Amendment No 37, we will incorporate some of Mr
Bradbourn’s concerns into the modified Commission
proposal, in order to thus leave a wider margin for the
principle of subsidiarity, because we feel that on some of
the issues he has raised, he is right.
Even if the Commission is able to accept the principle of
parallel training with the aim of obtaining both a driving
licence and a certificate of professional competence, we
would prefer to avoid any kind of duplication, and this
why we cannot accept Amendments Nos 6, 16, 17 and
18. We cannot accept No 5 either, because imposing
basic training on drivers who already work in this
profession but do not have three years previous
experience could cause difficulties in the sector, which is
currently suffering from serious problems due to a lack
of drivers. However, in the spirit of compromise we
could accept Amendment No 27. With regard to
Amendment No 10, which relates to the inclusion of
training within working hours, the Commission
considers that this is an issue that both sides of industry
should agree upon, and, therefore, cannot be accepted.
The Commission has problems with Amendment No 13,
which refers to the place of training. We feel that there
could be a certain degree of flexibility in continuous
short-term training, and that it should be able to take
place both in the Member State in which a driver is
normally resident and in the country in which he or she
is contracted to work, but not in other areas, given that
there are similar accepted requirements with regard to
driving licences and the driver card.
Amendment No 19 introduces an international transport
option based mainly on the understanding of languages.
This is not the aim of this proposal and, therefore,
cannot be accepted and we reject it. The Commission
does not accept Amendments Nos 2, 22 and 23 either,
because they go beyond the scope of the current
Directive. Finally, we believe that Amendments Nos 42,
44 and 45, which lay down the duration of training in the
92
16/01/2002
body of the text rather than in the Annex, cannot be
accepted either.
I shall conclude, Mr President, by thanking the three
rapporteurs for their work. I would also like to thank
Parliament, and there are no surprises here, for two of
their proposals, specifically the proposal on maximum
authorised dimensions in national and international
traffic and maximum authorised weights in international
traffic, and the proposal establishing a driver attestation
and I hope that these will be approved so that we can
move ahead as soon as possible with their
implementation. I hope that in later stages of
proceedings we will be able to reach agreement on the
training of professional drivers for the carriage of goods
or passengers by road, which we also consider to be a
vitally important factor in improving road safety and in
preventing market distortions, specifically in the
transport market within the European Union. I hope this
happens because, as I have already said, many of the
amendments tabled are going to be accepted and some of
those that mention the suitability of leaving a wider
margin for subsidiarity will be incorporated into the
amended proposal that we will be presenting at an
appropriate time.
3-245
President. – Thank you, Commissioner de Palacio.
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
3-246
ACP/EC Partnership Agreement
3-247
President. – The next item is the recommendation (A50412/2001) by Mr Rod on behalf of the Committee on
Development and Cooperation on the proposal for a
Council decision [2117/2000 – COM(2000)324 – C50417/2000 – 2000/0124(AVC)] concerning the
conclusion of the Partnership Agreement between the
African, Caribbean and Pacific States on the one part,
and the European Community and its Member States, on
the other.
3-248
Rod (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President,
ladies and gentlemen, even though I adopted a rather
critical tone in the report’s explanatory statement, we
must nonetheless adopt a constructive approach and,
despite the fact that time is getting on, I would
recommend that the European Parliament issue an
opinion in accordance with the ratification of the ACPEU agreement.
The signing of the Cotonou Agreement was not initially
accepted. Although the ACP countries had always
shown they were willing to continue their cooperation
with the European Union, Europe was becoming
involved in other matters. European interests on the
international stage changed and Africa became a
marginal continent. There are no ACP countries among
the 10 leading beneficiaries of European aid. A genuine
political assessment of Lomé was never carried out but
the same foundations have been used for Cotonou.
However, we have doubts regarding the ability of the
Cotonou Agreement to provide a dynamic for
sustainable development if we do not have a more
balanced international economic order, in which the
developing countries will finally have rights. The
structural causes which have undermined the success of
the Lomé Conventions are still present: the burden of
debt which is strangling the budgets of the ACP
countries and their potential to invest in sustainable
development, the continued deterioration of trade terms
to the detriment of the ACP countries, in the absence of
an international system for trade regulation of primary
products, a structural adjustments policy which imposes
budgetary restrictions on ACP countries and, lastly, an
inconsistent European policy which, like its
development policy, not only subsidises agricultural
production and exports its surplus to developing
countries, thus destabilising the local markets, but also
authorises industrial fishing vessels to fish the territorial
waters of the ACP countries, which adversely affects the
local people’s means of subsistence and compromises
the protection of biodiversity. Furthermore, do not
underestimate the internal working problems of the ACP
group, the democratic shortcomings in certain countries
and the misuse of funds by corrupt regimes.
The Cotonou Agreement is not groundbreaking. It
perpetuates and accentuates the transition towards
liberalisation initiated by Lomé IV and continued by the
international institutions: that is, the liberalisation of
trade, coupled with the withdrawal of the non-reciprocal
trade system, as well as Stabex and Sysmin, in favour of
the future trade regime which is likely to take the form
of Regional Economic Partnership Agreements (REPS)
that are compatible with WTO rules. But can the ACP
countries contend with global competition? By
differentiating them from the least developed countries
(LDCs), which benefit from the ‘Everything but Arms’
initiative, is there not a danger that this will undermine
the cohesion of the ACP group? There is economic
liberalisation as well, within the framework of the
general agreement on the commercialisation of services.
Privatisation of this economic sector is a very dangerous
process in the ACP countries where the basic public
services such as education, health and justice are already
fragile, even non-existent. Equally, the reference to the
TRIPS agreements is a danger for the people of the
South who are at risk of being denied access to their own
natural resources. Biodiversity is under threat.
Furthermore, in the Cotonou Agreement, the
environment is relegated to the background and the sole
aim is to limit the environmental impact of development
policies, which runs counter to a sustainable
development strategy.
However, the Cotonou Agreement contains some
interesting aspects that we must put to good use.
Acknowledging civil society as an actor in the
partnership is a major step forward. Its representatives
must take part in the dialogue on development strategies
16/01/2002
and policies at an early stage, be involved in the
implementation of programmes and directly benefit from
the funds. We must define civil society and ensure that it
is not exploited by any party. The civil society in each
ACP country must therefore be organised at national as
well as at regional level, in order to actively participate
in its country’s development. This process has been
launched with the ACP Civil Society Forum. The
European Union must support this process, as it did
under the Belgian Presidency.
The role of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly is thus
strengthened in that it must monitor the participation of
civil society as well as, and in particular, the
implementation of democratic processes. But it has no
binding instrument to do this. Political dialogue is
another essential element. It must also be reciprocal and
effectively implemented. The ‘Everything but Arms’
initiative was undertaken without consulting the ACP
countries and penalties are still random. Lastly, since the
European Commission wishes to make considerable
investments in several key sectors, the National
Indicative Programmes should give priority to
strengthening public services and administrative and
institutional capacities. In reality, everything depends on
how the Cotonou Agreement is applied. For example,
the new Cotonou Agreement provides for flexible aid
planning, in other words, according to how each country
performs. But who will define the performance criteria?
Will we assess the ability of each country to re-gain
some balance in macro-economic affairs or the impact of
aid on eradicating poverty? It does not seem likely that
the new distribution of competences between the
Commission services will provide greater consistency in
the development policy. To what extent will the
Directorate-General for Trade be able to encourage a
more favourable trade model in the ACP countries,
whilst also protecting European trade interests? Lastly,
the fact that the Directorate-General for Development is
gradually being stripped of its prerogatives in this area
does not bode well.
As far as we, the Members of the European Parliament,
are concerned – and this will be my final point, Mr
President – after tomorrow’s vote, our task is finished in
theory. Since the European Development Fund has no
budget, we are no longer responsible for monitoring and
achieving the objectives of the ACP-EU cooperation.
This is unacceptable and we must work together to
implement this agreement so that aid can make a real
contribution to the well-being of the people of the ACP
countries, as regards their food, health and educational
requirements.
3-249
Dybkjær (ELDR), draftsman of the opinion of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common
Security and Defence Policy. – (DA) Mr President, it is
now one and a half years since we were able to
congratulate the Commission on the Cotonou
Agreement, and it is really somewhat disgraceful that
there are still only three EU countries that have ratified
the agreement. I realise that there are probably some that
93
are on the way to doing so in the course of the spring,
but it is still not too satisfactory. At least it is good that
our approval is being put in place tomorrow, even if I
agree with the rapporteur that it is only the beginning.
However, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on
his report.
A lot has undeniably happened in the world since the
agreement was signed in June 2000, but that does not of
course make it any the less important. I think it can be
said that the fact that foreign policy is bound up with
development policy has, since then, been heavily
underlined, and I am also pleased that I am today
speaking on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy,
for this shows the connection between foreign policy
and development policy. In a speech in December 2001
in Berlin with the title, ‘From Afghanistan to
Zimbabwe’, Commissioner Nielson made these words
his own. Which form of policy comes first may be
immaterial. However, 11 September made this
connection and, in particular, the importance of foreign
policy, abundantly clear. 11 September showed what can
happen if we do not ensure development in all parts of
the world. It is now our task to pursue such
development. The same applies to our continuing work
in Kosovo. In connection with Zimbabwe too, the link
between foreign policy and development policy is clear,
as too is the fact that, in spite of everything, the EU has
succeeded in obtaining an agreement, which means that
we can operate in Zimbabwe in the hope of achieving
good results. I agree with the Commissioner, whose
speech contained the concluding remarks – which I
would certainly echo – to the effect that the C in CFP
‘...stands for common, not convenient and colonial’. I
agree that we therefore still have work to do, as we also
have here in Parliament.
3-250
Corrie (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would firstly like to
thank the rapporteur for the enormous amount of work
he has put into this document and for the information
that is in it. However, I am disappointed that he is so
pessimistic, both looking back to the past and forward to
the future. Of course I support some of his criticisms:
too much paperwork, a lack of decision-making, slow
delivery times and a lack of capacity in developing
countries. This has given rise to frustration, but
Commissioner Nielson is tackling these problems with
some vigour.
I am much more optimistic than the rapporteur. I believe
the Cotonou Accord is the right path. Lomé had its
faults. But it was a unique concept and much good work
was done. The new Partnership Agreement is based on
the right principles, enhancing the old Lomé
Convention. The theme of poverty alleviation must be
right. The only question is how best to implement it.
There is much discussion on project finance versus
budget support. Should we be using multilateral aid or
bilateral aid? I strongly support multilateral aid backed
up by bilateral aid where it can complement a project.
94
I do not believe that project aid has failed. The problem
has been the under-capacity of countries to continue
projects once they were completed by the European
Union. I am equally not yet convinced that budget
support can be controlled tightly enough in many
developing countries and fear that it will open the door
to corruption.
I believe it is the new factors in the Cotonou Accord that
will have the most influence: the political dimension, the
emphasis on good governance, conflict prevention and
resolution, the interaction with civil society, the regional
approach to strengthen trade and the Parliamentary
element of the Joint Assembly. All these are elements
that should strengthen the partnership.
All this has changed my role as co-president in the last
year. I certainly have played a more political role in the
past year, discussing, for instance, conflict resolution
and good governance with President Taylor in Liberia,
or having discussions on the Zimbabwe situation with
the Presidents of Botswana, Malawi and Mozambique,
and hearing and seeing the effects on their countries.
16/01/2002
such important matters as the safeguarding of human
rights and the application of the principles of democracy
and the rule of law, responsible governance and the
strengthening of civil society, failure to observe which
may be met with sanctions.
The political dialogue established by the Cotonou
Agreement and the obligation, equally embedded in the
Agreement, to work for the consolidation of peace and
the prevention and settlement of conflict, along with the
declared aim of combating poverty, are important
instruments of ACP cooperation, although unfortunately
not a guarantee of its success. To demonstrate this, it is
enough to refer to Sudan, the Horn of Africa, the Congo,
Zimbabwe, Islamic fundamentalism and HIV/AIDS.
Parliament's monitoring of ACP cooperation is an
example to the world. The Cotonou Agreement has
given it a new value, enhancing both its parliamentary
character and its role as an open forum for discussion
and a monitoring institution. This, too, is part of the new
quality of the Cotonou Agreement, and it, too, makes it
easy for us, as a Group, to support this Agreement.
(Applause)
All this depends on an effective Commission, with
properly funded and staffed delegations. Most of the
ones I have seen are extremely badly serviced at the
moment for lack of funds and the petty paperwork they
have to handle. This is Parliament's fault. We must urge
all countries to ratify the agreement, as Mrs Dybkjær has
said, to allow the ninth EDF to come into force.
This partnership has to work. If we really wish to see an
end to economic migration and terrorism in the world,
we must provide a standard of living in developing
countries which persuades people to stay and work there.
3-251
Junker (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and
gentlemen, if I might anticipate the result, the Group of
the Party of European Socialists can support the
Cotonou Agreement with conviction, even though
nothing is so good that it cannot be improved still
further. The tightly allocated speaking time
unfortunately does not permit a comprehensive
appreciation of the Agreement, and I am therefore
obliged to limit myself to a few aspects of it.
The Cotonou Agreement represents the unbroken
continuation of European cooperation with the
developing states of Africa, the Caribbean and the
Pacific, which began with the Yaoundé Agreement and
has since 1975 been expanded by a total of four Lomé
Agreements. The parties to Lomé I were just 46 ACP
countries and nine Member States of the then European
Community. The Cotonou Agreement now joins
together 77 ACP States and 15 countries of the EU.
Even more important, though, than the geographical
expansion is the broader basis with regard to content.
The collapse of the blocs and the associated political
upheavals across the world, including in the ACP States,
meant that the political dimension became more
significant, as did trade policy. The treaty comprises
3-252
van den Bos (ELDR). – (NL) Will the Cotonou
Agreement yield more results than its Lomé
predecessors? The new cooperation agreement with the
ACP countries has drawn on the experience gathered to
date, and bears witness to new insights in the field of
trade, good governance, aid and the role of civil
organisations. There is naturally room for criticism but,
in my view, Mr Rod is taking things too far in his
comprehensive report. In his analysis, Europe is the
devil personified while the ACP countries have been
elevated to the status of saints. The disastrous, violent
conflicts are caused by poverty, and poverty is caused by
the rich West. Unfortunately, things are not as simple as
that. It is unfair to claim that Cotonou will only lead to
unbridled liberalism. However, the agreement does
stress with good reason the importance of the
participation of players other than the local government,
such as NGOs and the private sector. Not only donors
have to draw lessons, but also the developing countries
themselves. It is therefore to be welcomed that Cotonou
reminds the ACP countries of their own responsibilities.
It is right that aid should be provided according to the
achievements of the receiving countries. Success in the
longer term does not only depend on us but also, and
above all, on the partners’ own continuous efforts.
Would Commissioner Nielsen agree with me on this?
Administrative capacity is crucial if results are to be
achieved. At least as important is preventing the abuse
of power and human rights violations. I therefore
consider the planned, broad dialogue to be at the heart of
the Cotonou Agreement. It is vital that the EU and the
ACP partners should not stop at good intentions. Europe
must drastically reform its own development, trade and
agricultural policy and the ACP countries must put all
their efforts into democratisation, political stability and
conflict prevention so as to allow their countries to
16/01/2002
develop socially and to make them fully-fledged trading
partners.
3-253
Miranda (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, I should
like to thank Mr Rod and congratulate him on his
excellent work on this matter and stress that, broadly
speaking, I agree with the ideas he puts forward in his
explanatory statement and with the conclusions he
proposed and which we approved in the Committee on
Development and Cooperation.
I shall, therefore, limit myself to a few brief
observations. I wish to say, first of all, that, to my mind,
the greatest success of this new Convention lies in the
very fact that its moment has actually arrived, given the
long and difficult obstacles that we have had to
overcome. These difficulties and obstacles began with
the recommendation to end our partnerships with the
ACP countries and culminated in the untimely and rather
inconvenient problem of migration, already in the final
stage of negotiations. The final outcome of these
negotiations, in addition to the establishment of a new
Convention for a period of twenty years, is therefore, to
my mind, to be considered one of the more positive
aspects.
There are also other, more substantial reasons for the
Convention, however. For example, a greater call for the
participation of civil society, especially if this is given a
broad meaning and if it is not at variance with the
cooperation and support deserved by the central
administrations of the ACP States, which suffer, as a
rule, from considerable structural weakness. This also
applies to the regionalisation that has been planned, if
this is undertaken carefully, if it is not imposed and if it
does not represent an undesirable fragmentation of the
ACP countries.
It should be pointed out, however, that there are also
aspects of this new Convention that make us rather
apprehensive. Firstly, the systematic call for the
imposition of unilateral conditions and objectives which,
apart from having the potential to destroy a partnership
that we want to be of equals, could also undermine the
choices made by the ACP countries themselves on their
own development policies. Secondly, the rapid move
towards enshrining the liberalising rationale of the WTO
which, as we know, has been particularly damaging to
the least-developed countries. These are aspects which
we cannot sweep under the carpet and which, like the
clear change of direction towards the East of the
European Union – I would remind you that none of the
ACP countries is yet on the list of the ten countries that
benefit most from European cooperation – may
compromise a partnership that we would like to be
beneficial, mutually advantageous and capable of ending
the cycle of underdevelopment and the enormous
poverty that affects those countries.
3-254
Belder (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, we are not doing
much more than going over old ground. It is nearly two
years ago that the negotiations about the Cotonou
95
Agreement were completed. Despite this, I hope that the
Council will take the report by Mr Rod seriously. I
would compliment the rapporteur on the sharp analysis
in his report. The fact that a number of inconsistencies
have survived in the Cotonou Agreement and the
unwillingness to reduce underdevelopment if this means
abandoning self-interest put the rapporteur in a sombre
mood regarding the outcome of the development project.
I share his concerns on this. I can only partly subscribe
to the shift towards integration in the world trade system
instead of a change of that system to benefit the poorest.
Admittedly, aid without trade is not very effective, but
trade is no panacea for underdevelopment.
I should like to finish off with a word on the future
regional trade agreements. From the WTO’s perspective,
there is little choice other than continuing with Lomé in
the same vein. However, I should like to draw your
attention to another perspective, namely that of
development. I am not so certain that the regional
economic partnership agreements will benefit all our
partners. Specifically, the least developed countries will
not find them very useful. Furthermore, conflicts of
interest may arise between the various countries in their
more or less artificially divided regions. This is
diametrically opposed to the EU’s conflict prevention
policy which is high on the agenda.
3-255
Schwaiger (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President,
Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, the new
agreement on cooperation and development, the
Cotonou Agreement, constitutes a significantly
improved framework for cooperation with the ACP
States. It is an agreement that we emphatically support,
one in which the significant improvements in terms of
content and policy originated in proposals by
Parliament. We do not, therefore, share either the
rapporteur's highly critical assessment or his reasons for
it. Indeed, we take the view that it is something of a
caricature.
Let me, in response to the rapporteur's analysis, list three
points in favour. Firstly, the establishment of a
parliamentary assembly represents genuine progress, in
that, after an appropriate preparatory period, ACP States
will be represented only by freely elected
parliamentarians, rather than by ambassadors, as is still
to some extent the case. This principle must not only be
incorporated into the new rules of procedure of our Joint
Assembly, but also put into practice. We will vote
against the admittance of any ACP ambassador if, for
example, he displaces freely elected African delegates.
The second is the regional approach to cooperation, also
originating in proposals by this Parliament, which puts
an end to economic parochialism in Africa. Our
cooperative effort must in future be focused on regional
free trade and cooperation agreements. We insist that our
regional parliamentary cooperation should begin on the
ground this very year, for example subsequent to our
Southern African meeting in Cape Town in March or our
meeting with ECOWAS in the course of the year.
96
Thirdly, we support the reinforcement of the clause on
democracy and human rights, which we believe must be
speedily implemented. Let me mention only Nigeria,
Togo and Zimbabwe as examples of why this is so. We
hope that this will bring about genuine parliamentary
partnership with our fellow parliamentarians in Africa
and elsewhere in the ACP countries.
3-256
Martínez Martínez (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, our
friend Mr Rod’s recommendation in favour of
Parliament’s ratification of the Cotonou Agreement is
accompanied by an exhaustive analysis of the
agreement, its significance and new developments, made
from a critical point of view that we share for the same
reasons as the rapporteur himself: because of the gaps in
the Treaty and the shortcomings that have already
become apparent during its short provisional life. This
does not prevent us, however, from supporting it and
encouraging its ratification.
This agreement was drawn up in a world significantly
different to that of the first Lomé Convention. Under
current global conditions, economic instruments are no
longer sufficient in themselves to steer globalisation
towards the goals of justice. We must also have
instruments of political cooperation. For this reason,
even with all the shortcomings, this agreement should be
welcomed so that we can get the best out of it.
The role of the European Parliament in this agreement
cannot be limited to controlling the European
Development Fund. I think that we can achieve a great
deal with this agreement. At the moment, we can
publicise its positive aspects and attempt to have it
ratified by our national parliaments. It is scandalous that
a year and a half after it was signed, only three of the
fifteen Member States appear to have ratified it.
Another important action that we can encourage is the
consolidation and effective operation of the national
parliaments in ACP countries. Mr Rod highlights the
participation of civil society as something new in the
agreement and recognises the ever-important role of the
State but, within States themselves, efficient parliaments
are the best guarantee of preventing poverty, fighting
corruption and of making our cooperation more
effective, which is the underlying objective of the
Cotonou Agreement. We support our partners’
parliaments and also the ACP-EU Joint Assembly,
which will be able to carry out the function of
democratic control conferred on it by the agreement.
Mr Rod asks us the million-dollar question: does our
cooperation in the context of the Cotonou agreement aid
the development of our ACP partners or does it simply
seek to impose the liberal model on these countries? And
does the liberal model actually guarantee fair
development in these countries? I think that, on its own,
it does not work. For this reason, we should make an
effort to ensure that this Cotonou agreement is apart
from being merely a framework for trade relations, an
16/01/2002
instrument for decent and equitable political and
economic relations with the ACP States and to ensure
that our cooperation with them is one of the pillars of a
supportive and democratic world order that we need and
which we are committed to, at least, as far as my group
is concerned.
3-257
Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, I welcome the report by
Mr Rod and I agree with him that the renewal of the
framework agreement governing cooperation between
the EU and ACP States is best considered against the
backdrop of the challenges posed by globalisation,
economic liberalisation and the European Commission's
reform of external assistance. Indeed, over 18 months
after the signing at Cotonou, we can now begin to assess
the agreement by looking at the actual progress made in
bringing it to life.
First, despite its strengths, in one particular aspect at
least the previous Lomé agreement fell short, that is in
the fight against poverty. I very much welcome the
promotion of poverty eradication as one of the core aims
of the new partnership agreement, but we must ensure
that this is also reflected in the Commission's
programming through its country strategy papers.
I regret to say that the strategy papers reviewed so far
show the transport sector receiving 35% and
macroeconomic support 25% of all programmable
resources. In the Committee on Development and
Cooperation we have on countless occasions stressed the
need to plough resources into basic health and basic
education if we are serious about poverty reduction. It is
right to stress this point again tonight.
The second crucial change from Lomé concerns civil
society participation. What sort of results can we expect
after hearing reports that civil society has not yet been
involved in a genuine and meaningful way? I am
disappointed to see that out of a possible 15%, only 2%
of resources have been allocated to capacity building in
the country strategy papers drawn up so far. Was this
because civil society organisations were not consulted or
because civil society has such a low absorption rate?
The Cotonou agreement stipulates that civil society
participation should come from the bottom up, yet
without the capacity this is impossible.
Finally, in pointing out some of the practical challenges
that lie ahead, I would not and do not want to denigrate
the huge achievement of the negotiation and signing of
the agreement in the first place. The EU-ACP
partnership remains a model for North-South
cooperation in our world and one which we celebrate
properly in our vote for ratification in the European
Parliament this week.
3-258
Nielson, Commission. – Mr President, allow me first to
congratulate Members of Parliament on having taken
this important step in the process of approval of the
Cotonou Agreement.
16/01/2002
You all know how important it is to complete the
ratification process in order to be able to implement the
agreement fully, including its financial component. You
also know how important the ACP-EC relationship is in
the framework of the Community’s development policy.
One very important aspect is that the text of the Cotonou
Agreement is a negotiated text. This is also indirectly
reflected in the comments from many in this debate
about the fact that having the agreement is quite an
achievement. The way we obtained it was through real
negotiations. This is what Mr Howitt pointed out in
presenting this as a model for a more global relationship
between north and south. There are many deficiencies in
it and much of the criticism comes from the fact that it is
still very ambitious and it is difficult to implement. This
has to do with the expectations we have as to what our
partner countries actually put into the programming
process. This is not for us alone to decide, which is
partly my response to Mr Howitt's comments.
I shall now make some brief comments on the report as
such. I find the report’s approach towards the trade
dimension of Cotonou interesting, although I cannot
agree with all of it. Certainly, the report’s evaluation of
the economic and trade regime under Cotonou is based
on a political view of development and North-South
relations. For example, we do not agree with the report
that the Cotonou Agreement is in favour of
"development only through market laws". In our view,
the Cotonou Agreement provides a comprehensive
framework, integrating trade as one instrument among
others to promote sustainable development. The core
element of future trade relations will be the Economic
Partnership Agreements which aim to create favourable
conditions to enhance both the volume and the benefits
of trade.
It is true, negotiations of regional economic partnership
agreements will aim at the progressive and flexible
liberalisation of trade flows and at the integration of
ACP countries into the world economy. But this will be
in line with their level of development and will take into
account the socio-economic impact of trade measures.
REPAs will be based on regional integration,
strengthening and deepening the existing regional
integration initiatives. This is also why I do not share the
view expressed by Mr Belder that these initiatives could
be some sort of risk, in relation to conflict prevention.
We clearly have the expectation that this regional
cooperation will be part of conflict prevention and
strengthen it. This is what experience tells us.
97
1991. We are now in 2002 and the Community’s export
policy to developing countries has changed in recent
years. In particular, since the early 1990s we have
considerably reduced the export refunds for beef exports
to Western Africa, precisely to avoid any substitution of
local beef by subsidised EU beef. As a consequence,
there has been a progressive decrease of EU beef exports
to ECOWAS countries from a level of 54 000 tonnes in
1991 to only 1600 tonnes in 2000. This is a classical
case. We have had a number of them in the debate about
coherence. Most of these cases are historical cases and
they have all been solved. But there are other very real,
meaningful important problems to discuss within the
framework of the debate on coherence, so I would
strongly advise everybody in this debate to put the finger
on the real problems instead of providing only
archaeological material.
There is also a certain confusion in the report when it
comes to trade relations with LDCs. It is stated that
LDCs would automatically opt for the Everything but
Arms regime, whereas non-LDCs had the choice
between Economic Partnership Agreements and the
normal GSP regime. This is not the case. On the
contrary, it is important to stress that LDCs will be part
of the regional economic partnership agreements
process. REPAs will tackle all barriers to trade,
including issues such as sanitary and phytosanitary
measures or technical barriers to trade and will build on
the existing regional integration initiatives. Both are
highly relevant for LDCs.
Finally, let me emphasise that REPAs need to be
integrated into the development strategies of the ACP
and the EC. It will therefore be essential that
negotiations on the REPAs and implementation on the
one hand, development policies on the other, are
mutually supportive and that appropriate EU support
measures are included in regular EDF financing. REPAs
will set a trade policy framework which will need to be
fully coherent with development policies.
REPAs will also be linked to comprehensive economic
and social measures which can be financed through the
EDF. This is not sufficiently reflected in the report.
It is true that the objectives of the Cotonou trade agenda
are ambitious but doing nothing and continuing with our
past approach would incur major risks and would
probably not reverse the economic marginalisation of
ACP countries. When we look at what has happened so
far on the basis of the instruments of the past, this is
quite obvious. The Cotonou Agreement provides the
instruments to help ACP countries to integrate in the
world economy and to reduce poverty. We have to use
them in the best possible way. It would be a
misunderstanding to think that our agreement here and
our instruments can do the trick. There are very good
basic reasons why these poor countries are not well
integrated into the world economy. There are real
problems there.
Some statements in the report could, in our view, be
more precise. For example, the reference to EU beef
exports to Western Africa is highly critical of
substituting local beef by subsidised EU beef. However,
this argument is based on EU exports from 1981 to
The report is written as if it were a realistic assumption
that as part of the engineering and the negotiations
underlying the Cotonou Agreement we could easily have
confronted and changed many of the underlying global
issues. I hope I am not shocking anyone by saying that it
98
is not as easy as that. It never was an option to offer the
ACP countries a framework of economic development
that was not based on the fact that the market economy
is here to stay. But this is not the same as saying that the
market is the only method. The Commission disagrees
with that statement. In fact the whole endeavour of our
ACP-EU cooperation, as well as the rest of our global
development cooperation effort, is proof of the fact that
we are trying to do something that could never have
been done if development was left to the market as such.
This is why we do it. Let me end on a more conciliatory
note by quoting from the conclusion of the report, which
I strongly support. "In effect the existence of a new
ACP-EU cooperation agreement is a victory in itself.
Furthermore, it contains innovative aspects that will
have to be interpreted and used constructively. As the
European Parliament has no powers to amend this text, it
is essential to work to get the most out of it, so that aid
can make a real contribution to the well-being of the
people of the ACP countries, as regards their food,
health, educational requirements, etc." This is the kind
of language I can identify with. We welcome this
conclusion.
I want to conclude by expressing deep satisfaction on
behalf of the Commission that the European Parliament
has now concluded its part of this process and we hope
to see it concluded in general as soon as possible.
3-259
President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.3
(The sitting was closed at 11.30 p.m.)
3
Agenda for the next sitting: see Minutes.
16/01/2002