diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'tests/interface/input-tsv/train2.en')
| -rw-r--r-- | tests/interface/input-tsv/train2.en | 2048 |
1 files changed, 2048 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/tests/interface/input-tsv/train2.en b/tests/interface/input-tsv/train2.en new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f802f85 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/interface/input-tsv/train2.en @@ -0,0 +1,2048 @@ +it is obvious that control and monitoring systems will be acceptable and necessary in order to prevent abuses and instances of unfair competition . +however , these systems must not be confused with or turned into a comprehensive and universal obstacle to the granting of public aid where such abuses and instances of unfair competition are identified . +in our opinion , Mr Azzolini 's report , on which I congratulate him , does not tackle this question with sufficient clarity or depth . +however , it does deal adequately with the need to make the decision @-@ making on specific regional situations more flexible . +if approved , the amendments , which deserve our support , should extend and increase the degree and scope of this flexibility . +Madam President , ladies and gentlemen , regional policy and competition policy work towards objectives that do not seek to achieve the same outcome . +competition policy is based on the principle of banning state aid to businesses , with derogations from Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( c ) that are restrictively applied in the free competition environment of the single market . +if we want greater coherence we must draw a distinction between the two zoning systems when the diagnosis for certain regions indicates that it would be to their advantage . +deciding on the level of coherence should be left to the Member States which , in any case , are responsible for submitting proposals for negotiation with the Commission . +I would add that transparency must also be a basic guiding principle . +accordingly the Commission has presented a proposal for implementing these principles and establishing broad coherence between the Structural Fund aid and national aid . +that is consistent and it is a sensible solution . +I hope the Member States also decide to follow that line consistently . +what it so significant is that this is the only way to restrict competition about standards and the abuse of aid . +but we will also find that the different authorisation times in the different Member States will make it very easy to circumvent this . +so I ask the Commission to tell us how it proposes to organise the authorisation timing so as to prevent this from happening . +let me also point out that the Commission proposal does not deal with one particular problem , namely subsidy shopping . +national undertakings can still go on taking up aid unchecked and thereby damage regions . +so in that respect there are a few things missing in the proposal . +how are you going to resolve this question ? +Madam President , the Agenda 2000 proposals as also this report seek to strengthen the complementarity between competition and regional policy . +the arguments put forward for this are the ever widening divergences between policies and the overlaps in the various aid maps . +but those who support this approach are forgetting that the desired equal cover of national and EU aid areas makes it even more difficult for the Member States and regions to support their own problem areas by using their own resources . +that reinforces this policy of positive discrimination in favour of the most disadvantaged regions . +in any case the objectives of Agenda 2000 , namely greater concentration and coherence , already involve a serious cutback in aid to the relatively successful regions . +it would be not just absurd but in fact inconsistent with the very principle of subsidiarity to also deprive them de facto of the instrument of national aid . +Madam President , I should like to congratulate the speakers , the Commissioner and his department on their reports . +the public tend to perceive competition policy as essentially an economic issue . they think of it as the system of ground rules governing the relationship between businesses in a market economy . +that is indeed what it is . yet they sometimes overlook the implications these arrangements can have for their daily lives as consumers and workers . +it is far easier for the economic and strategic power groups we sometimes euphemistically term lobbies to penetrate the Commission 's offices than it is for the ordinary consumer or for the ordinary citizen to do so . +I believe this would mean setting a serious legal precedent in the liberalised sectors , which has in fact already been invoked by Telefónica , the company which until recently held the monopoly over the telephone service in Spain . +Madam President , it is consumers and citizens who are the touchstone where liberalisation is concerned . +if the European Union cannot guarantee that they will not be crucified by the processes of liberalisation , the European institutions , including our own , will become ever more distant from the citizens . +Madam President , I want to confine my comments to two aspects . +first , let me unreservedly agree with what is stated so clearly for the first time in paragraphs 17 to 20 of Mr Azzolini 's excellent report : tourism is a good thing ! +for many parts of Europe tourism is the key to survival . +but subsidised tourism is a bad thing , it is unacceptable , because it does not produce sustained structural improvement but simply throws away and wastes huge amounts of European money . +when an undertaking that receives a large amount of aid relocates to the next place , it generally leaves far more damage than useful things behind it . +so let us put an end to this nonsense as quickly as possible ! +let the Commission apply its collective wisdom to finding good solutions . +this brings me to the second aspect I want to address . we also need good solutions to Agenda 2000 as a whole and to structural reform in particular . +we need these good solutions quickly . +we have barely two months left under the German Presidency 's new timetable and we have to put this time to good use . +the Commission and the European Parliament have done good work together in the past months . +now the Council has to show that it can reach consensus . +it will certainly not be easy to accommodate fifteen different opinions on this difficult subject . +we cannot wait another seven years for the assent provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty to enter into force . +we want to have a constructive say now . +Mr President , at the outset I want to congratulate both rapporteurs on the presentation and , of course , the preparation of their reports . +I , of course , agree that the internal market for the free movement of goods , persons , services and capital should operate in an even @-@ handed manner . +for an internal market to succeed , all regions within Europe must be able to economically compete effectively in such an arena . +at present there are some regions within my country and within Europe lagging behind the European Union average for economic performance . +the Commission has already brought out new revised state aid guidelines which have been approved by the 15 Member States of the Union . +these guidelines provide that Objective 1 regions will be entitled to grant aid to endogenous and inward investment companies setting up within their localities to a ceiling of 40 % . +this may appear unfair competition but it is necessary to bring the less well off regions up to a Union average . +it is also important that such policies are complemented by a higher proportion of spending under the ERDF so as to guarantee that any infrastructural deficit which exists in our transport network is rectified in the near future . +Mr President , I should like to thank Mr Azzolini for his excellent report . +as regards the Commission 's proposal concerning regional aid , I find it both unacceptable and ridiculous . +the reason for this is that the Commission is proposing that only those areas which receive EU aid should be eligible for national regional support . +this implies that the Commission does not believe that the Member States are capable of conducting a regional policy which is in the interests of the respective countries and their citizens . +instead , everything is to be centralised and managed through the EU and Brussels . +decentralisation and flexibility are conspicuous by their absence . +it is not that I am opposed to a policy on regional aid , it is the way in which national regional aid is to be distributed that I find unacceptable . +Sweden has a long tradition of regional aid , the purpose of which is to achieve a balance and to iron out differences between the various regions . +it was implemented in the interests of social solidarity and was an extremely costly process . +however , it was worth the expense and was a sound move , in my view . +the Commission 's proposal rules out this kind of social and economic solidarity , which is a mistake . +consequently , I believe the rapporteur has tried to remedy the worst deficiencies of the Commission document , and that Mr Macartney has also tabled a good amendment which I shall support and which substantially improves the report . +Mr President , all too often the situation in reality suffers when rigid and theoretical rules of economic policy are applied in the name of free competition . +there is a risk in this Chamber of allowing the European Parliament 's priority objective of economic and social cohesion to fade into the background and be compromised . +the cost will largely be met , so runs the script , by the new Objective 2 regions and , under the Commission 's plan , all the benefits and advantages will be enjoyed by the applicant countries . +the chorus of Members of Parliament asking the Commission to modify its position is swelling daily : I hope the increase in volume will at last convince the Commission . +a Union with huge differences in economic and social development between its various regions certainly can be neither credible , nor viable , nor competitive . +it is a fact that the European regional policy has led to great improvements in the development rate of areas which were characterised by macroeconomic imbalances and low competitiveness , such as Greece . +however , there are still important regional inequalities which could become more acute , as a general phenomenon , as a result of economic and monetary union and the Union 's enlargement . +so the policy of economic and social cohesion is a long @-@ term and continual process which , in any event , must be compatible with competition policy if it is to be effective . +however , it is known that several Member States are pursuing national strategies and state subsidy policies which are in many respects incompatible with the European cohesion policy to combat regional inequalities . +indeed , if we include all the horizontal branch and regional forms of aid , it becomes evident that it is the wealthier areas which benefit most , and not the disadvantaged areas . +Mr President , as is customary every year , the Commission 's 27th report on competition policy provides a good picture of the Commission 's thinking in this area and of its specific policy data . +flexible operation of the single market can only be achieved , certainly following the launch of the euro , if competition conditions are fair not only in law but also in fact , and if there really is equality of opportunities for all businesses . +the Commission 's efforts to ensure that there is free competition within the single market are thus vitally important . +the Commission does good work here , and the fact that its decisions are not always palatable to those Member States which it is forced to reprimand in no way detracts from the value of that work . +I must compliment the rapporteur , Mrs Riis @-@ Jørgensen , on the work she has done . +I thank her for her fine and constructive cooperation , and all I can really say is that her report sets out what we in the PPE Group wished to say on the subject . +so I have nothing more to add , in point of fact . +I just have one question for the Commission , a very specific question . +I should like to hear from the Commissioner whether that ruling has implications for all the regulated professions . +the PPE Group 's view is that account must be taken of the special role of certain professions in the general interest of society . +we should have liked to know the Commission 's thinking on this . +I appreciate that I am rather springing this on the Commissioner . +I do not necessarily expect an answer here and now , but perhaps a written reply ? +forgive me , Commissioner , for not waiting to hear your answer now , but there is a group of 100 people waiting for me 50 kilometres away . +unfortunately , I have to leave the Chamber straight away . +Mr President , I think it is very important that both Commissioners are here at the same time , so that we can speak about regional policy and competition policy together , and speak too about regional aid and state aid . +the Commission should make its work more effective , encouraging as great a degree of transparency as possible with regard to all public aid . +in my opinion it makes no difference whether it is a matter of state aid or regional aid . +we should be creating a situation where every citizen and business would at any moment in time be able to acquire information about how much state aid or regional aid has been granted to which project . +there should be a page on the Internet where information could be listed on all public aid in order to ensure transparency . +another issue I wish to raise is the importance of real commitment on the part of business to regional aid programmes . +thus , if a company receives aid it must remain in the region . +it must stay there for at least five years and ensure that jobs are preserved . +it cannot just pack its bags the moment it has been given public aid . +Mr President , we definitely need a strategy which targets better coordination of regional policy and competition policy at European level . +the Commission plans to reduce the percentage of the total population of the Union receiving state @-@ funded regional aid over the period 2000 @-@ 2006 . +investment in jobs must then be maintained in the region concerned for at least five years , so that national aid does not encourage relocations . +in addition to that there is also a problem for the ultraperipheral and island regions which , because of their difficult geographic position and their particular intrinsic nature , are already amongst the least favoured regions in the whole Community . +Mr President , I rise to speak on the competition report introduced by my colleague , Mrs Riis @-@ Jørgensen , to whom I offer my congratulations on the quality of her work . +I want particularly to support the amendments from my colleagues Mr Hendrick and Mme García Arias which talk about the possible abuses of dominant positions . +this is not , in itself , an unwelcome development but it does exacerbate the risk of an over @-@ concentration of ownership of the essential utilities . +the whole point of the liberalisation process is that it should bring the benefits of efficient , competitive , consumer @-@ sensitive utility supplies to be widely available to consumers , both domestic and business . +the reported situation in Spain , therefore , is of major concern . +it would be against the whole spirit and letter of European Union competition rules if the costs of the transition to competition in electricity supply were to be met initially out of public funds and this then to be passed on to the consumer . +this is a most serious distortion of the level playing field , particularly if the money is then to be used to gain a share in other utility markets . +I hope that the Commission will deal with this point in response because it is particularly important that the issue is highlighted and that the Commission response is on public record . +the rapporteur in this report mentioned naming and shaming and on the basis of the evidence available , this is a situation of sufficient seriousness to merit a considered reply from the Commission . +I am sure that this will be forthcoming . +I have apologised to you , Commissioner , because I cannot stay . +my colleagues are going to take a careful note of your response . +I know that we will want to follow up this issue . +Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , first I would like to congratulate the rapporteur , Mr Azzolini , on his excellent work . +certainly , ever since the Treaty of Rome , competition policy has been an integral part of the European economy as an essential factor in competitiveness for each of the European regions , whether less favoured or developed . +there is a danger , which is that aid from the European Union to particular regions may distort work already in progress in the market in favour of certain areas . +I think the rapporteur 's approach to all this is fundamentally correct and I hope Parliament will follow his lead . +Mr President , I welcome very much the Azzolini report and I agree with the essential arguments which are put forward . +I have to say that I have one reservation and that is whether we should have virtually total co @-@ terminosity between the two kinds of maps that we are talking about . +I fear that we could be aiming at uniformity for the sake of uniformity . +I really believe that there is a real need for a measure of flexibility , that recognises that there are particular situations in different parts of the Union . +flexibility is needed essentially because we are talking about two different kinds of aid . +on the one hand , there is aid for developing the infrastructure and human resources of the less prosperous regions . +that is done through the European Union 's structural funds . +on the other hand , there is aid for particular industries and enterprises through national state aids , like regional selective assistance in the United Kingdom . +that is national state aid . +in many cases , of course , the two will naturally go together . +but in some instances we need to acknowledge that to help certain areas we sometimes need to support industries that are adjacent to Objective 1 and 2 areas . +why do we need to do that ? +one simple reason is that people are increasingly travelling significant distances to work on a daily basis . +to help people in one area occasionally you have to allow state aid to industries in another area . +often , of course , firms developing in one particular area help the region immediately next to it . +there is a knock @-@ on effect to economic development . +therefore , there is a strong case for flexibility and with that one reservation I support Mr Azzolini 's report in total . +Mr President , I agree with Mr Azzolini when he says that regions which are coming out of Objective 1 must not be treated as strictly as the Commission is proposing to do . +regions that have just emerged from a state of low economic development usually suffer from serious deficiencies in their infrastructure . +in the case of Ireland where I come from , it is estimated that it would take 10 billion euro to bring our road networks up to the average EU standard , even if we have just enjoyed six years of very generous structural funds . +in all the regions of the EU which are just emerging from economic backwardness we must realise that there is still a serious burden of the past to be carried . +until genuine economic equality has been achieved the Commission must be extremely careful not to impose rigorous harmonisation which could lead to a reversal of gains already made . +rather , we must promote as normal for all Member States the tax regimes which have been shown to be successful . +the basis for the European convergence model must be the successful tax regimes rather than the ones that are creating difficulties . +it is important to explain to EU citizens that they can only enjoy free trade and the benefits that it brings if they are prepared to have a body to enforce discipline and fairness . +there will always be those who will attack the efforts of the European Commission as bureaucratic interference but we must be prepared to explain to our citizens that they can only enjoy consumer benefits within a single market if fairness and equality is enforced . +however , I wonder whether we always draw the right distinction between strategic alliances and the possible emergence of monopolies , which would be harmful to competition . +when I look at the Communities ' competition law in regard to , for instance , cartels and subsidies I find , however , that it is in fact being reviewed continuously and as required . +in regard to state aid it certainly needs emphasising that this aid is still needed . +but we have good reason to criticise the very high subsidies granted in a few Member States . +that is certainly not in the common interest of effective , free and fair competition . +at this moment in time , distortions of competition as a result of tax aids are more important . +not enough cases of this kind are being investigated . +more and more Member States want to attract business to their national locations by granting tax reliefs to undertakings , in the financial and insurance sector , as also in other economic sectors . +that distorts competition . +I believe the aid rules must look more closely into these distortions of competition . +the Commission must investigate more of these cases . +the list of 85 cases of tax reliefs , some of which are reminiscent of tax havens , currently before us speaks volumes . +the Commission must also play its part in preparing the next round of WTO talks , for we do need competition law that also works at international level . +here the current GATT and WTO rules need to be supplemented by internationally effective competition rules . +I believe it would be important to have national reports on competition , like the WTO national trade reports . +I also believe it would be important to try to establish minimum standards for all states in order to prevent anti @-@ competitive practices , and to set up independent competition authorities . +that could lead to effective , international competition rules under which the signatory states undertake also to make their national competition law internationally applicable . +Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , Commissioners , I want to begin my speech by congratulating Mr Azzolini on the excellent work he has done on his report on competition and cohesion . +the Treaty of Rome defines competition policy in order to eliminate any form of distortion likely to interfere with the free play of market forces . +from Rome to Maastricht it was recognised that we needed a cohesion policy geared to strengthening the less favoured regions of the Union , thus substantially pursuing the same purpose - a homogeneous common market . +between Maastricht and Amsterdam the aim was adjusted , as it was recognised that the free play of competition and market homogeneity could only be achieved through a policy of economic and social cohesion that paid more attention to territorial reality . +it is in that spirit that the Amsterdam Treaty adds , for example , a reference to the island regions , so that they can start from a level playing @-@ field and compete on an equal footing while respecting market forces . +now , on the other hand , we are seeing a development in competition policy , which is attempting to take account of cohesion policy by including it in its most important regulations , but all it is really doing is complicating those regulations . +Mr President , regional policy and competition policy can be complementary and need not conflict with one another . +it is the wealthy Member States which make greatest use of the instrument of state aid , and cutting down on this by a more rigorous implementation of competition policy will definitely help the poorer Member States by creating a level playing field . +but regional policy can actually lead to unintentional distortions of competition . +our regional policy is too slow to react to change . +part of the reason for this is that we take a decision just once every six or seven years on which regions qualify for aid , and we do that on the basis of figures which are already a few years old . +Mr President , I should like to thank Commissioners Wulf @-@ Mathies and Van Miert for their presence here today . +there is no doubt that to date the single market , together with its necessary consequence , economic and monetary union , has been the greatest achievement of the process of building the new Europe . +such success would not have been possible without a policy guaranteeing competition as the best security for economic growth and job creation . +nevertheless , free competition and growth must never compromise social and economic cohesion , key elements of the acquis communautaire , to which the Union devotes a significant proportion of its budget . +I should like to focus on the need to tackle the thorny issue of state aid . +according to the existing arrangements , agreements between enterprises , the abuse of dominant positions and unjustified state aid are regulated by constant monitoring to safeguard competition . +however , what sort of aid could be justified ? +this is not a trivial question and has never been clarified , though the Commission attempted to do so in 1975 , 1979 and 1988 . +the interpretation of Articles 92 ( 1 ) , 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) still gives rise to a number of problems . +as regards the regions with the greatest objective and structural deficits , the only possible interpretation has to be the one that will provide for the greatest development of these areas . +any other interpretation would certainly be branded as eurocentrist , difficult to justify and therefore unacceptable . +Mr Van Miert is a politician and not a technical expert . +Mr President , Commissioners , Mr Azzolini 's report on the links between regional policy and competition policy is a most important one . +it deals with concerns that directly affect the people in the Member States and the regions . +the resolution may not have any direct impact on the progress of the regional policy reform , yet it must be regarded as directly linked to it , given that we are talking about coherence between European and national regional aid . +some Member States have no problem with the requirement of coherence which the Commission is laying down in order to secure its competition policy aims because almost their entire territory is covered by European aid . +but the situation is different in some other countries . +here the dual approach of concentrating the European objective areas on the essential ones , which is right , while at the same time calling for maximum coherence with national aids , sometimes imposes a double burden that is very difficult in regional policy terms . +how can we explain to the people living in the regions concerned that both European and national aid is prohibited , despite the imminent threat of unemployment , despite the absence of promising job prospects ? +the 2 % flexibility margin is not enough , nor is it convincing . +nor is there any justification for it being 2 % rather than more or less . +that does not mean that the Commission 's endeavour to bring about greater coherence is wrong as such . +in the long term we need a more balanced coverage if we want to avoid distortions of competition . +that would take away any chance of adjustment for many of the regions . +in that respect I welcome the fact that agreement seems to be emerging between the Council and the Commission on taking a more flexible approach to the flexibility question , on not specifying any target dates and giving the Member States more margin for decision . +so the discussion we held in Parliament has had the desired effect . +Mr President , we have arranged that I will speak first and try to respond to Mr Azzolini 's report . +my colleague Mr Van Miert will then address the many concrete questions raised in connection with the competition report . +first I want to thank Mr Azzolini for his most interesting and careful report . +I am also grateful that we agree at least on the question of principle , namely that we need greater coherence between national and regional aid policies . +let me emphasise again , as others have rightly said , that different problems are involved here . +in relation to Objective 1 we already have equal cover between competition aid and regional aid from European resources . +nevertheless I believe that we must begin by emphasising the logic of our policy . +it makes no sense to embark on a kind of division of labour that would mean that European structural policy looked after the less eligible areas and that national aid was then concentrated on the areas most in need of structural adjustment . +I do not think that would be logical . +what we are in fact proposing is to widen the Member States ' regional margin for play , for as a rule national competition aid covers areas wider than those that can be supported through the Structural Funds . +that means that over and above European structural aid the national states and the regional authorities have a variety of means of supporting their structurally weak areas . +that is why I believe that it does indeed make sense to establish more congruence between Objective 2 aid and Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) . +a number of Members have pointed out that on 25 January this year the Foreign Ministers ' Council reached agreement on a compromise , which I shall briefly describe to you because it is important to your further discussions . +let me take up what Mr Rack said , namely that Parliament can play a careful part in the discussions and in seeking Agenda 2000 solutions only if it also has the appropriate information . +here the Community 's aim should be to achieve better coherence by the end of the period 2000 to 2006 , with the Member States making the appropriate efforts - in accordance with their situation at the time.' +as I am sure you will notice , this is not necessarily the most direct way of saying that we want to improve the situation . +and I am sure it is no secret either that Mr Van Miert and I myself would certainly have wished to see better coherence . +in regard to timing , the problems of competition policy and structural policy do indeed differ . +we take the view that the agreement that has now been reached in regard to the common communication will help us find sensible and closely coordinated solutions in both competition and structural policy . +that could mobilise a substantial steering instrument . +I hope that in future the monitoring committees will ensure this too . +let me return now to the concentration of aid on the most disadvantaged regions . +during this debate many speakers have said that this concentration is the crux of the reform and that without concentration any positive effects for poorer regions would be reduced out . +that is why I think it is so important that we do not counteract our own endeavours by watering down the 75 % criterion . +for the rest , the ultraperipheral regions do not face any problems , because they all fulfil the strict 75 % criterion . +in the case of Objective 6 regions we must indeed differentiate , as we must for islands , because there the state of development differs widely and we must all take that into consideration . +we would be doing ourselves no favour if we said that exceptions would guarantee everyone their own special rules ; instead we must ensure that the level of aid is adjusted to the severity of the problems . +in that sense I hope we will agree during the further discussions on Agenda 2000 , and above all its implementation , on the need jointly to promote the necessary coherence so that the structurally weakest areas can catch up . +Mr President , firstly I should like to offer my sincerest thanks to the two rapporteurs , Mr Azzolini and Mrs Riis @-@ Jørgensen . +this is not the first time that I have had the pleasure of debating our annual report in person here with Mrs Riis @-@ Jørgensen . +I am truly delighted by the quality of the reports , and also of the debate . +as a result , it is rather a shame , Mr President , that there is so little time to respond to the many comments made and real issues mentioned . +therefore , I would like to ask you to forgive me for only responding to a few of the points that have been raised , but this is down to necessity . +firstly , I should like to answer Mrs Riis @-@ Jørgensen 's question about democratic control and transparency . +it is a fundamental issue as the Commission has a direct and specific responsibility in this field . +it is both logical and necessary that , at any point in time , the Commission should be prepared to appear before Parliament or before the responsible committees to explain the decisions that it is taking or refusing to take . +Mrs Riis @-@ Jørgensen , I am fully prepared to commit myself to coming here every month and talking to the responsible committee , which is much more than the three visits a year that were made a few years ago . +this is all I ask . +I am in your hands . +there are plenty of issues and problems to debate . +so it is up to you : if you invite me each month , I will be here . +with that said , I should very quickly like to turn to the report by Mr Azzolini , as Mrs Wulf @-@ Mathies has already responded to a number of comments . +we need to agree on the objectives of this process . +currently , 51 % of the population live in regions eligible for Structural Fund aid , and 47 % in regions eligible for national or regional aid . +therefore , we , Mrs Wulf @-@ Mathies and ourselves , must now work together to try to reduce the number of eligible regions . we must make an effort to concentrate aid and try to be as consistent as possible . +and I am delighted by the fact that , at Commission level , we have been able to reach an agreement on this . +even a small reduction spurs all manner of forces into action , standing up to demand that their region remain eligible . +but if we do not do this , I feel that we will not be doing our job or our duty given the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union . +therefore , we must work along these lines and accept that our policy will have certain effects . +we also need to decrease the intensity of aid . +on many occasions you have specifically criticised the problem of relocations . +you have called on us to do something about this . +so , in answer to your request , we are reducing the differences in intensity whilst also remaining within acceptable limits as the limit for A regions is 40 or 50 % . +for the outermost regions the limit may be even more , but for C regions I believe that an intensity of 20 % is a suitable ceiling and , in certain circumstances , could even drop to 10 % . +as a result , I believe that this is a better balance and , what is more , the national authorities will still be able to do a lot for the most needy regions . +therefore , in the future , our policy will be much more balanced than before . +I will finish there on your report as there are a number of questions on Mrs Riis @-@ Jørgensen 's report also awaiting an answer . +firstly , there is the general question of state aid . +many of you have said that the economically most developed countries award the most aid . +this is indeed true , and it is also why we are trying to be much stricter . +I can tell you that , last year , we made a series of negative decisions on state aid , as many as 31 , compared with only 9 in 1997 . +this is clear proof that , little by little , we have become far stricter , as should be the case . +you know what the consequences of this are , sometimes involving disputes with governments , regional authorities and so on . but that is the price that has to be paid for a more credible , consistent and coherent state aid control policy . +there is no other solution . +we must be sure of what we want . +having said this , there are grounds for forging ahead with this issue . +Mr Metten talked specifically about fiscal aid . +Mr Metten , as you know we currently have approximately thirty cases to consider , but I should like to ask you where I can find the human resources to do so . +no one has asked if we have the tax consultants to do it . +no one has asked this question . +as regards state aid , I would particularly like to mention the matter of the energy sector in Spain very briefly . +I am aware that this issue is gaining extraordinary political proportions . this is how the situation stands . +firstly , the Spanish authorities would like to liberalise the energy sector more rapidly than in other Member States or than stated in the directive , and we can only welcome this . this much is clear . +secondly , it is true that this operation , not only in Spain but in other Member States , will involve what we call ' stranded costs ' , but in principle it is a state aid issue . +so the Commission and DG IV must be notified of all these cases , as well as DG XVII , so that we can examine them separately but coherently . +this is the background to this whole exercise . +for the moment , I cannot say any more than that . +once we have been notified , we will , of course , attempt to clarify the situation as quickly as possible . +another issue is that of the Canary Islands . +we have already approved what we call REF , the economic and fiscal regime . +and now , we have been notified about the ZEC , as we call it - the Canaries special region . +the fact that the Canary Islands will remain an A region will clearly let us consider allowing more aid than if they had moved from an A ranking to a C ranking . +it allows for a broader based approach . +however , for the moment we are examining what the government has brought to our attention . +at this point , I cannot tell you any more . +Mr President , I see that I have already exceeded my speaking time . +please allow me , by way of conclusion , to highlight an issue which unfortunately has not been fully debated here today , namely the modernisation of competition policy . +Mrs Riis @-@ Jørgensen , I will take the liberty of suggesting a subject to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy so we can debate it . +you know that we have already taken a series of steps as regards state aid and in other areas such as vertical restraints , and so on . +but there are others and , very briefly , I should very much like to have an opportunity to discuss them with the responsible committee . +thank you , Commissioner . +the debate is closed . +the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. +climate change +Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I am pleased to report to you today on the results of the climate negotiations in Buenos Aires and the follow @-@ up work for the coming months . +Parliament has put forward a very interesting resolution and I note with satisfaction that we are agreed on the great majority of points . +my assessment of the Buenos Aires conference is also that it was a success , although the overall result was limited . +secondly , the EU played an important role in getting the G77 countries and China to the negotiating table , so that they could feel more closely involved in the process . +I continue to focus on better relations with the developing countries in connection with the preparations for the Fifth Conference of the Parties , not least by prioritising the practical formulation of the mechanism for sustainable development , the Clean Development Mechanism . +finally , there is a commitment on the part of the Argentinian Presidency to strengthen political control of the process by holding ad hoc meetings at ministerial level in the enlarged Executive Committee between annual meetings of the Conference of the Parties . +I believe that such ad hoc meetings are crucial in keeping the process on the right track . +on the whole , therefore , I think that the Fourth Conference of the Parties succeeded in making good progress towards implementing the Kyoto Protocol . +I therefore think it important that a decision should be taken at the Sixth Conference of the Parties on the three mechanisms together , so that the package will include a strong and cohesive system for monitoring the mechanisms . +we also want to continue the debate on how we can achieve the Convention 's final objective , namely to prevent dangerous climate change , at the same time ensuring that the burdens are shared fairly and taking into account our common but differentiated responsibilities . +it is important that we do further work on implementing policies and measures to combat climate change , not just at international level but to an even greater degree in the EU and hence in the Member States . +I also agree with Parliament that we must concretise how we can achieve our aims , since good intentions are certainly not enough . +the Commission , Parliament and the Council must take their responsibilities seriously and come up with concrete actions and decisions . +in this connection , I stress that some important proposals have been presented which require a decision , for example the proposal on taxation of energy products . +I strongly urge Parliament to deliver its opinion on this proposal before the parliamentary elections , so that the new momentum from the German Presidency can be used to advantage and so that political agreement can be reached at the meeting of the ECOFIN Council in May . +in the field of taxation , our first objective must be to ensure that the proposal on taxation of energy products is adopted , since an increasing number of Member States now seem to agree that such taxation is necessary . +with the Plan of Action and the internal policies and measures , our aim is that the Kyoto Protocol should be ratified and take effect as quickly as possible . +I am strongly in favour of speedy ratification . +but this means that we must put our own house in order , so that ratification will not be just an empty gesture . +in this context , the more proactive stance of certain American industrial interests in the effort to combat climate change and the signature of the Protocol by the USA can be regarded as positive steps . +there were signs in Buenos Aires of a more positive attitude on the part of certain sections of the American Congress . +here I have to say that I am sceptical with regard to declarations from Argentina and Kazakhstan signalling their willingness to enter into a binding commitment at the Fifth Conference of the Parties . +in the long term it is important that the developing countries should be involved , but the real test of such voluntary commitments is their final effect in practice . +in order that a country can take advantage of the benefits of the Protocol , it must sign it . +it must also honour in full the obligations it has thereby taken upon itself . +moreover , we must - as we have said before - ensure that we do not just get more hot air into the system through having unambitious objectives . +so let me come back to our internal programme of work . +as I already announced in September , I shall be presenting a communication in the spring of 1999 . +I entirely agree that we need a comprehensive EU strategy . +the year 2008 looks far ahead in the future , but we must act now if we are to have any chance of achieving our objective . +in the Commission communication therefore , we will concentrate on those elements that are crucial to ensuring that the EU can achieve its objectives . +these key elements include common and coordinated policies and measures , the Kyoto mechanisms and links with third countries . +the communication will contain a full analysis of the effects of the trade in emission rights , common implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism . +I assure you that I will do my utmost to expedite the adoption of this communication so that it can be presented promptly and be ready for the Cologne summit . +Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I will say in closing that , generally speaking , I can support Parliament 's resolution and I look forward to further very constructive cooperation in our common effort to combat climate change . +Mr President , may I remind the Commissioner that , according to one of our sayings , words and deeds are often oceans apart . +I think it is essential , Commissioner , to do a number of things at international level . +one of these - and a very important one too - is to continue the dialogue with the developing countries that was so productive in Buenos Aires so that we can develop the proposals for the clean development mechanism together with these countries . +I also believe it is essential to incorporate these issues more effectively into our strategies for negotiating the accession of the applicant countries to an enlarged Union . +in Kyoto , the countries whose applications are being considered for accession in the first wave undertook to make the same reductions in emissions as the Member States of the European Union . +I think some of my colleagues will want to deal in greater detail with European burden @-@ sharing . +I also believe that these measures will have to be accompanied by the development of safeguards in the areas of health , agriculture and ecological protection , because as the change in climate becomes ever more apparent , dangers will emerge that we may never have contemplated . +Mr President , before I speak to the resolution , can I clear up a translation error . +in the English interpretation of what the Commissioner said , reference was made to the withdrawal by the Commission of the CO2 tax . +in fact , you were much wiser than that . +you did not withdraw the proposal , you amended it , and that amended proposal is still on the table and I hope the Council will take it up . +I trust that all the language versions will be consistent with what you actually said . +I am grateful for a copy of the text in English . +I had the honour to lead Parliament 's delegation to the Buenos Aires Conference and the report from myself and other colleagues is available to Parliament . +in my view , COP IV was a moderate success dragged screaming from the jaws of what might have been a negotiators ' deadlock . +the Buenos Aires Action Plan promises some progress by the time of COP VI in the year 2000 . +for the first time it reflects interest in the principles of contraction and convergence and of global equity which this Parliament has voted for regularly . +my report draws attention to the helpful and positive role of the Commission in Buenos Aires for which I am grateful and for the courtesy which it showed towards Parliament . +my report also draws attention to the failure of the Council either to recognise , to use , or intelligently to consult MEPs during the course of the Conference . +the latest Council guidelines on MEP involvement , decided on a week before Buenos Aires , are positively insulting to Parliament . +I have raised the matter with the President and I hope that the Committee on Institutional Affairs would look at this in the context of the next IGC . +the Union learnt the lessons of our relative failure in Kyoto and reached out towards countries in the Group of 77 , looking for allies in the cause of sanity in protecting the climate of the planet . +I would like to use my last few seconds to make an appeal to the Commission . +despite what the Commissioner said about the possibility of political progress between COPs , I should like to encourage the idea of a structural review of the whole process of the Conference of the Parties . +in my view at the moment it is far too prone to technical logjams stopping political initiatives . +the rhythm of the Conference of the Parties makes it difficult to take political initiatives between conferences . +it seems to me , having been to all these COPs , that we are caught now between this being a continuing and at times difficult negotiation and , at the same time , being an institution with administrative responsibilities . +I hope the Commission will take up this suggestion . +I thank the Commissioner for her statement and I commend the resolution to the House . +Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , it is difficult to claim that Buenos Aires was really a success . +whilst the Kyoto talks managed to agree on a reduction of greenhouse gases , regrettably no detailed rules were agreed on how exactly this should be achieved . +I think it is fair to say that the Union has done what it could , and I warmly congratulate Commissioner Bjerregaard on her hard work and determination . +we have the Buenos Aires action plan and we should give this our full attention , because important decisions will have to be taken at the climate conference in the year 2000 . +I should like to emphasise two points . +firstly , if the Kyoto protocol is to come into force , it has to be ratified by at least 55 of the parties which account for at least 55 % of all emissions . +we must keep hammering home the point that it is essential for the USA to ratify . +if the biggest polluter - the USA - and Russia do not ratify , for example , then Kyoto is meaningless . +my second point is that emissions trading can only be allowed if the bulk of the effort is made at national level . +I quite agree with Commissioner Bjerregaard that we must set a ceiling on emissions trading . +we must not , so to speak , export the problem . +the positions of the Union and the USA are diametrically opposed to one another here . +the Union rightly maintains that action to combat climate change only makes sense if everyone plays their part . +and this has always been the position of Parliament , even if it is not explicitly stated in the resolution now before us . +finally , regarding the harmonised energy tax , we too are in favour of a tax of this kind , but provided it is fiscally neutral . +our group has tabled two amendments calling for a harmonised tax , and they should be understood in that context . +I have one last question to the Commissioner . +where does she stand on the question of a possible tax on aviation fuel , to be introduced at European level ? +there are those who say , perhaps rightly , that the answer lies in better technology so that the level of emissions is reduced . +but the increase in air transport means that measures will definitely be needed in this area too . +Mr President , how can one fail to agree with the Commissioner when she proposes specific measures , follow @-@ up procedures , cooperation with developing countries and taxation in connection with the production of energy ? +I am sure we all agree with her , particularly as she has put forward specific measures to ensure that what has been agreed is carried through . +according to scientific opinion and to the United Nations ' report , 50 000 deaths and losses totalling 12 billion pesetas were caused by natural disasters in 1998 . I do not myself believe these disasters were all that natural . +I am not sure what the losses amount to in euros , but 12 billion pesetas is certainly a lot of money . +the European Parliament has expressed this view on several occasions . +scientists also tell us that emissions must be brought down to between 50 % and 60 % of their 1990 levels , if we are to have a positive impact on climate change . +we are aiming at an 8 % reduction in the emission of six greenhouse gases . +if we do not even achieve that 8 % reduction , we shall be endangering the future of the planet . +we therefore welcome your proposals , Commissioner , provided you do ensure that the Member States comply with them . in particular , we should like to see the load spread fairly between industrialised and developing countries . +we are opposed to the idea of making developing countries start to pay , as the United States would have them do . +it is for us to pay . +Mr President , I was part of the delegation with Mr Spencer and Mr Linkohr at the conference in Buenos Aires . +how one judges the conference is a matter of opinion . +Mr Spencer said it was a moderate success . +I think that is a fair description . +I recall Commissioner Bjerregaard saying at the press conference at the end that we would have wanted to achieve more , that we always do , but that this was as much as we could persuade the other parties to the conference to agree to . +the European Union showed real leadership , supported to a large extent by the candidate countries , the G77 and China . +I also recall the President @-@ in @-@ Office of the Council saying that at Kyoto we agreed on concrete reduction targets and greenhouse gas emissions by the industrialized countries . +in Buenos Aires we kept the momentum of Kyoto by establishing the action plan which was one of the objectives of Buenos Aires and deciding on other measures like the elaboration of a compliance system . +the international press treated the conference with a certain amount of cynicism ; some called it a fiasco . +it was a difficult conference because there were long , tortuous and turgid negotiations but I cannot but support Mr Spencer and congratulate the Commission . +I also applaud the decision by the United States to sign the protocol . +while recognising that it may be a diplomatic formality , as we say in the resolution , at the same time it is very effective and signals a change of opinion in the United States . +we must also applaud the COP IV host countries , Argentina and Kazakstan for signalling their willingness to enter into a binding commitment at COP V to reduce their greenhouse emissions further . +that is progress of some sort , small though it may be . +so , it is a good resolution . +I support it as does my group and , along with Mr Spencer , I commend it to the House . +ladies and gentlemen , Mr Fitzsimons , I would ask you not to exceed the time you have been allocated . +the services tell me we are running late . +I have no wish to cut you off , and I am confident you can regulate yourselves . +I know you are all very responsible and will take this reminder in the spirit in which it is meant . +Mrs Hautala now has the floor for one minute on behalf of the Green Group in the European Parliament . +Mr President , the European Union has had a very positive role in worldwide negotiations , and , in my opinion , the Commissioner deserves personal recognition for this . +but at the same time the fact remains , and it gets ever more embarrassing from one day to the next , that the Union has not been able to take any decisions of its own which would lead to establishing its own commitments too . +for that reason it is vital that we debate the issue of energy taxation , something the Commissioner mentioned earlier . +it is also important that those countries that wish to go further than others can , in addition , adopt this original proposal for a carbon dioxide and energy tax . +it would be interesting to hear what estimates the Commission might have here . +we must remember that the Treaty of Amsterdam makes provision for a situation where some countries can move forward more swiftly than others , if those others are not ready . +but I am sure that industry has also realised that climate policy can give it a competitive edge , and this should be seized upon . +Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , was Buenos Aires a flop ? +I do not think so . +it was not a flop , it just suffered from the last night at Kyoto when the Americans tried to introduce flexible mechanisms into the protocol without which they were not going to sign up . +it must also be said that the Conference President did not show the same diplomacy as Ambassador Estrada , who led the proceedings at Kyoto extremely well , but that is just a minor detail . +the European Union must continue to support this position . +I therefore agree with the introduction of the flexible mechanisms , which will finally allow the cost of emitting one tonne of carbon to be calculated in economic terms . +it must be said that the developing countries , which are non @-@ Annex I countries , do not even have any quota to sell under Article 6 . +we must be serious about this and rather more flexible with regard to the developing countries . +I would now like to turn to a subject of great interest to me , which is forestry . +the Kyoto Protocol stipulates that funding can be granted for reforestation , particularly for carbon sequestration and especially within the CDM or Clean Development Mechanism . +this can play an important role in allowing the industrialised countries to support and provide funding for reforestation projects in developing countries . +the NGOs concerned with the protection of the environment point out that it is essential that only projects which respect biodiversity are subsidised . +we must ensure that projects for intensively managed plantations are not subsidised at the expense of protecting biodiversity . +Mr President , the outcome of the 1997 Kyoto conference on climate change was rightly seen as a turning @-@ point , albeit only a first step in the right direction . +it represents a first attempt to reduce greenhouse gases and so halt the progress of man @-@ made changes to the world 's climate . +it is most important that the Kyoto Protocol should be speedily ratified by all the parties , notably the United States and Russia . +pressure is building towards this , particularly amongst business circles in the United States . +it is clear that much remained to be done after Kyoto in terms of concrete follow @-@ up . +the follow @-@ up conference in Buenos Aires has resulted in a single programme of action with pledges and timetables . that was a welcome development . +much consideration must also be given to dialogue with the developing world . +but there is a danger that it may be restricted to the conclusion of agreements on emissions trading . +firstly , in my view , the European Union itself must work to cut greenhouse gas emissions within the EU . +it is also very important to assist other countries , for example by the transfer of cleaner technology which can be provided through development aid . +it may be that emissions trading takes place within the continent of Europe . +emissions trading will only take place with countries outside Europe if those countries actually take steps to reduce greenhouse gases . +if countries within the EU itself make an effort , this may encourage non @-@ European countries to play their own part in cutting emissions . +to achieve this reduction in emission levels , environmental policy needs to be incorporated into other policy sectors , such as energy , transport and agriculture . +appropriate ways to do this are the promotion of efficient energy use , renewable energy and energy taxes . +once again , I would advocate the introduction of a tax on aviation fuel . +lastly , our responsibility for these issues is a shared one , but each individual country has an individual responsibility to contribute to resolving the problems too . +the individual citizen likewise has an individual responsibility . +so work is needed to create a worldwide awareness of the fact that things cannot go on this way and that a new model of sustainable economic development is needed , based on respect for the natural world and its Creator . +Mr President , the slower @-@ than @-@ slow approach to reducing emissions that was adopted in Buenos Aires is like trying to have a wash without getting wet . +an effective policy on the global climate will not be achieved until the real cost of emitting active substances into the atmosphere is borne in full by the polluter . +for that to happen , we need a suitable legal framework . +the oft @-@ repeated excuse that reducing emission levels is too expensive is suicidal . +a society that is unwilling to invest in the preservation of its own vital resources , and hence in the survival of the human species , is doomed to extinction . +the emissions catalogue that was negotiated in Buenos Aires is no way to tackle the problem . +in the long run , problems can only be solved at the point where they actually occur . +Mr President , although Mr Linkohr has taken two @-@ thirds of my speech , I am actually 100 % in agreement with what he has said . +I want to start by thanking the Commission and particularly the Commissioner for their work and personal commitment and also for the way in which , in Buenos Aires , they received and worked with the representatives of this House . +unfortunately , the Council adopted an attitude which it cannot maintain . +in institutional terms , Parliament must now adopt a position in relation to the Council and each of the Presidencies , and before the next intergovernmental conference at that . +the second part of my speech is connected with what Mr Linkohr said about policies and measures . +my concern is that reductions are not being made in many areas of the EU and in the majority of the world 's countries . +in Portugal , for example , electricity consumption grew by 6 % last year , which was double the growth in production . +it is clear that this cannot go on . +I support the Commission 's intention to prepare a directive - which I would like to see as soon as possible - in order to establish certain compulsory minimum levels of penetration of renewable energy . +we have spoken to Commissioner Papoutsis and we agree that the directive is urgently needed . +the penetration of renewable energy in the market has been shrinking because of the fall in the price of oil and natural gas , and also given that the cost of energy does not currently include environmental costs . +as for the applicant countries , PHARE and TACIS now have no influence over their energy consumption . +if this situation continues , Mr Linkohr 's prediction will come true : as soon as the acute crisis has ended , emissions will increase . +thank you , Mr Pimenta . +after your first few words , Mr Pimenta , I was considering withholding two thirds of your speaking time , but you then went on to exceed it by a minute . +once again , I must urge Members to keep within the time they have been allocated , as the services tell me we are running late . +I know you all have very important issues to raise , but I would ask you to be concise . +my remarks are addressed in the first instance to Mrs Breyer , who now has the floor for one minute . +Mr President , Commissioner , you referred to the role of the United States . +I believe the issue today is a different one . +it is about the need for the European Union to take the lead here . +to put it plainly , loopholes in the Protocol such as the scope for emissions trading must not be used as a means of wriggling out of responsibility . +which takes us straight to this question : what has happened to the promised measures ? +I should also like to hear from you exactly what is to happen now with regard to the implementation of the White Paper on renewable energy sources ? +you referred to the key role that the energy tax is to play . +all right , we now have a proposal on an energy consumption tax , but that is surely a tiny step . +after all , the Commission itself has admitted that the implementation of this proposal will not prevent a 6 % increase in emission levels by the year 2010 . +what did you say about the most intractable problem of all , namely transport ? +we know that CO2 emissions by vehicles are set to rise by 38 % between now and 2010 . +here too , I would ask you to answer the questions my fellow Members have been asking . when will kerosene finally be taxed ? +when will you make some serious efforts to honour the promise that was made to us last year ? +we need action , not paper and not fine words . +Mr President , we need to lift our eyes from concentrating only on the fiscal measures . +we seem to do quite a lot of wringing our hands about the Council 's reluctance to agree an energy tax and other fiscal measures . +I agree with the Commissioner that it is time the Commission put its own house in order on climate change . +I want to hear some detailed commitments that this is happening . +early in the debates we heard some nice aspirations about sustainable agriculture and I applaud that . +we need to see active implementation on strategic environmental assessment with an eye to climate change and to use this as a tool for assessment of policy at European level , especially external aid as well as policy here in the European Union . +we also need more work on exactly what clean development technology transfer will consist of and the relationship with our overseas development assistance . +active implementation of CDMs is going to be pivotal to winning the support we need for the Kyoto protocol from the developing countries . +without some support from them for the notion of equity , we will continue to have problems trying to get America to ratify . +if we can make progress on some of these issues , the European Union could go forward with confidence to set the tone for COPs V and VI . +certainly we know that climate change is not going away and it certainly will not go away because of the text that Parliament is going to vote tomorrow . +the United States is not going to ratify simply because we asked it to . +this week the Environment Ministers are down in the Antarctic watching how it is melting away , looking at what the problems are going to be . +Mr President , Commissioner , of all the environmental challenges facing us , climate change is undoubtedly the most complex . +every country in the world is tangibly affected . +emissions do not pose a threat in the short term , but in the long term they are infinitely more serious . +the first hesitant steps towards a negotiated solution have been accomplished with a certain amount of pain . +since the commitment which has to be made can impinge noticeably on a nation 's finances , it is essential to find solutions which benefit the environment at the lowest possible cost . +there is no doubt that trade in emission levels provides such a solution . +therefore , in my view , it is absolutely crucial for the Commission to carry out a wide @-@ ranging study into how this instrument should be used to ensure that the problem of climate change is dealt with in the right way . +research carried out in Scandinavia shows that trade in carbon dioxide emissions in the Nordic countries would cut costs by 50 % . +although a reduction in emissions may be hard to verify , the research shows that the benefits of a successful outcome are so substantial that a huge effort needs to be made to establish a sustainable system . +it must also be in the EU 's best interests not to unilaterally adopt economic instruments which have the effect of substantially increasing costs , for example in comparison with the USA , putting us at a competitive disadvantage . +in future negotiations , we should put right some of the mistakes that were made at Kyoto . +for the sake of the future , we should not dismiss economically sound methods which have shown themselves to be effective . +the phasing @-@ out of nuclear power would lead to serious problems if it became a reality . +instead , this excellent source of energy should be developed and improved . +so I would ask the Commissioner either to respond here and now or to let those of us who are working in very close synergy have some answers as soon as possible . +this is becoming crucial for us because the crises occurring in Africa and the ACP island states are leading to grave disasters . +Mr President , I should like to thank Parliament for the debate . +I think that Mr Linkohr was quite right and that he put his finger on something we may have noticed in these debates . +in the course of the debate , I have heard a number of suggestions as to how we can do more to persuade the other parties to become more actively committed to the line that we have taken . +so I entirely share the view of Mrs Graenitz that it is important for us to continue the international effort , not least in relation to the developing countries . +I agree with Mrs Graenitz and others that the applicant countries must be more closely involved . +I think it was Mr Pimenta who also stressed this point . +it is what we are trying to do all the time . +it is also what we did in Buenos Aires but clearly , on the point of energy policy and its consequences , there is a great deal still to be done in relation to the applicant countries . +I also think we have good reason to consider how we organise the process . +we had some discussion of this in Buenos Aires . +I also mentioned that the continued Argentine Presidency had plans for a more political process , but I am happy to take part in discussions on other ways of tackling it . +Mrs Hautala stressed - and I think quite rightly - that we must meet our own objectives . +in other words , the Commission must come up with a further plan , which I will be happy to discuss with Parliament . +the question of a flight tax or a kerosene tax , which we have discussed once or twice , is somewhat more difficult . +we have also taken this up in a number of forums . +the last occasion on which I myself pressed very hard for it was at a meeting we had under OECD auspices with the environment ministers . +it was very clear that there was powerful opposition from the USA , Canada , Japan and others , so the question is whether something can be done at European level , because the opposition at international level is formidable . +I share Mrs Pollack 's view that there are a great many areas we must tackle . +there will be some initiatives on the internal market . +later in the year , I think , we shall have an opportunity to discuss the problems relating to the WTO . +I think Parliament may remember that there was a joint communication from Sir Leon Brittan and myself , and we certainly intend to continue this cooperation up to the forthcoming WTO negotiations . +fortunately , I can say that the German Presidency has included the proposal on strategic environmental assessment on its prioritised list , so it is also my hope that we can make further progress in this area . +Mr President , there may well be many things we need to discuss , but let me close by thanking Parliament for its support for the line we have embarked on . I look forward to the continuation of that cooperation . +we really need all our forces if we are to convince the other parties that we have set the right course . +thank you , Mrs Bjerregaard . +I have received a motion for a resolution tabled pursuant to Rule 37 ( 2 ) . +the debate is closed . +the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. +food treated with ionising radiation +Mr President , in several European languages the verb ' to congratulate ' is reflexive . +I also consider it important to emphasise that ionising radiation cannot replace good agricultural practice , which means that food should only ever be irradiated when it is fresh . +I also believe it is very important to validate and standardise inspection procedures , so that the Member States can exercise an unambiguous right of control and so that consumers are ultimately able to assert their rights . +at this particular time , when the issue of food safety is under widespread scrutiny , it is essential to have such a directive . +Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , the treatment of foodstuffs with radiation conjures up diabolic visions in the minds of many people , while sending many a practitioner and expert into transports of delight . +European policymakers were faced with the task of reconciling these two extremes and making the practical application of radiation treatment possible . +the treatment of foodstuffs with ionising radiation must be possible , we believe , where it is prudent and necessary , but not as a substitute for health measures and hygiene . +I do not believe what Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz said about radiation being used on food that is going off to make it fit for consumption again . +not even radiation can do that . +that will be explicitly stated in future directives too . +it is a very important principle . +in my opinion , it goes without saying that the food in question poses no health hazard whatsoever . +but that has to be re @-@ emphasised , because we have heard the opposite message again today . +food treated with ionising radiation is not radioactive food , and we , the population of the EU , can consume it without becoming seriously ill . +harmonisation at European level is therefore an urgent necessity . +the legal position in the various Member States has hitherto been unduly disparate . +whereas food has been treated with radiation for years in France , Belgium and the Netherlands , for instance , irradiated foodstuffs are prohibited in other countries , so there is no trace of the single market here . +the result of the conciliation proceedings with the Council is good and has our approval . +the market in food treated with ionised radiation will gradually become a single market too . +compulsory labelling will also enable consumers to make a choice . +I believe this represents a major success , and I cannot help emphasising the specific role played by my group in the inclusion of standardised and validated verification methods in the directive . +without validated verification methods , there can be no credible labelling system . and without a credible labelling system , there can be no consumer confidence . +on the subject of confidence , I must repeat - and I agree with Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz here - that spending ten long years on a directive is not something we can afford to do very often . +let me say to the Commissioners that we certainly cannot afford a repeat with regard to the chocolate directive or the labelling of alcoholic beverages . +directives like the present one should not become the norm . +it is high time we started to build up consumer confidence by acting quickly . +Mr President , I welcome this directive because it creates a legal framework for the single market in foodstuffs treated with ionising radiation . +it sets high standards and limits to production which may be treated . +improving food variety and quality through added value is now central to a modern food sector . +the quality of the product , information on its source and full details of the added value process must at all times be fully available to consumers . +food products resulting from new research must only enter the food chain after the most stringent tests have been undertaken . +consumers must at all times be protected from the uncertainty of inadequate testing of new products . +in a nutshell , public health and consumer protection must be paramount to all other considerations for Europe 's agrifood sector . +this Parliament has played a key role in ensuring that the concerns of consumers are taken into account and that the eventual risks related to the control mechanisms are minimized . +the highest standards of food quality must be the primary goal of national governments and the EU . +and measures which enhance and improve food quality must be supported . +I am pleased that in Ireland there is a growing appreciation of the professional role of farmers in providing quality raw material to a food sector committed to the highest standards of consumer satisfaction . +Mr President , in her absence , I should like to congratulate Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz for seeing this very difficult conciliation through . +it might have come more quickly . +anything which includes the word radiation is bound to be fraught with difficulties , misunderstandings and misgivings . +what is the proper use of ionised radiation ? +essentially it has to be where consumer safety benefits . +it is for the consumer and for the consumer 's health . +it is not where producer profits benefit because of the cosmetic effect on fruit and other foodstuffs of limited durability . +we do not benefit from eating strawberries which have passed their natural span simply because they can be artificially preserved . +we do , however , benefit from maintaining the natural span of spices and preservatives which are used in our stores and which are kept for long periods of time . +we have a strict range of products which can be sold now throughout the single market . +we can understand that in each Member State the same conditions apply and the same safeguards apply . +with enlargement soon to come , we should also understand that this is an important benchmark for the applicant states where all kinds of temptations lie in wait for the agricultural sectors in those countries , as Mr Schnellhardt has already said . +this is perhaps the first time we have been able to come to some sort of consensus on an aspect of radiation and radiation treatment . +it will not be the last . +why ? +because we have placed very tight restrictions on the scope for using ionised radiation . +my second point is that we have always pressed for labelling , so that every consumer can choose whether or not to buy one of this limited range of treated food products . +consumers can leave them on the shelves . +no consumer will be deceived into buying these products unwittingly , because they will be labelled . +protest +oh I see , you have put your jacket on . +I thought you had left , because you were in shirt @-@ sleeves when you spoke ! +well , as far as chocolate is concerned , the problem is exactly the same . +Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz rightly said that we should have a certain amount of trust in the consumer . +that is the view of the Commission too . +so why not let consumers choose what they want ? +some of them can then insist on buying chocolate with only cocoa fats , while others might not mind taking other types of chocolate . +that has been precisely the problem with the radiation too . +as long as we did not have a common set of rules , some Member States treated all sorts of food with ionising radiation , and it was not labelled . +I am now in my eleventh year as a Commissioner . +if Parliament is gracious to me , I shall see out my term . +if not , I would not be unduly upset either . +sometimes one really does wonder whether it is at all possible to come up with a reasonable set of rules which everyone can accept while appreciating that they might not represent any one person 's ideal solution . +there is no such thing as an ideal solution in a democracy anyway , because wherever a hundred people are gathered together , at least three or four different opinions will emerge . +but labelling will give consumers the freedom to choose for themselves . +given the range of opinions on such subjects , the only answer is to give the individual a set of reasonable options . +that is why I am glad that we have finally reached this point . +but if I were a Member of Parliament , I should think thrice before celebrating this as a parliamentary triumph . +thank you , Commissioner , for your frankness in speaking to the House . +however , it has provoked a comment from Mr Fernández Martín . +he cannot just get up and leave in the middle of a sitting . +Mr President , I shall not do that , because the purpose of this debate is to draw some clear political lines at long last . +I did not say that Parliament alone was to blame ; Germany , my own Member State , has blocked the solution of this problem for ten years . +I have spent ten years repeating the arguments that Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz has presented this evening . +I am damned if I will apologise , because this is a proper democratic discussion . +you have been wrong for the past ten years , and now you do not want to admit it ! +that is unacceptable . +duplicity kills democracy ! +you will know what it says in the Bible about a sinner that repenteth , Mr Bangemann , and I think you should see Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz in that way . +just a brief comment , Mr President . +Commissioner , I have absolutely no idea why you should be pillorying Parliament . +with regard to the chocolate directive , I was merely trying to express precisely what you went on to say . +the Council thinks it is entitled to drag this whole thing out , and the other business too . +but I agree with you entirely that both of us - the Commission and Parliament - should pillory the Council . +that was all I said . +the debate is closed . +the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. +aid to ACP banana producers +Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , a rapporteur can discover some astonishing things when he listens to the debate on the preceding report . +I was certainly rather surprised to hear Mr Bangemann say that he would not be unduly upset if he were unable to complete his term of office . +that would not be a matter of indifference to me if I were a Commissioner bearing responsibility for Europe . +and perhaps I would work inside the Commission to ensure that the cases criticised by Parliament did not give any further cause for criticism . +but let us move on to the bananas . +in 1997 , the United States and several Latin American countries applied for a WTO panel investigation . +the WTO panel found that the EU market organisation of that time did not conform to WTO rules . +the Commission then submitted a proposed amendment package , which was accepted in 1998 . +as part of the package of proposals , the Commission suggested that additional payments be made from the EU budget to the ACP banana producers . +there is still some controversy , even within the WTO , as to whether the adjustments made to the actual organisation of the EU markets meet WTO requirements . +I believe I speak for everyone here when I emphasise that it is not for the USA to take this decision , but rather the competent WTO authorities . +it needs to be emphasised time and again that the USA has no right to take unilateral action in this matter . +speaking personally and on behalf of no one , however , I must also say that the European Union will surely have to prepare itself to accept the WTO ruling , and that further adjustments may have to be accepted at some future date . +the report , however , is only concerned with the package of compensatory payments proposed by the Commission , even though they are not part of a legal framework . +it asks the question how these compensatory payments are to be made , in what form and to which producers . +here too , there are various positions within the European Union . +there are differences between the Council and Parliament . +the Council has rejected some important amendments which Parliament tabled at first reading . +some of these decisions are beyond my comprehension as the rapporteur , and I am sure the whole committee finds them equally baffling . +one of Parliament 's main priorities was to support ' fair trade ' producers . +this has always been a parliamentary priority and should also play a very prominent part in the allocation of funds to producers , rather than the minor role suggested by the Council in the common position . +we believe that payment should depend on compliance with minimum standards in terms of working conditions , and we believe that grower and producer organisations , the farmers ' organisations , should be involved in the allocation of the funds . +the committee also decided by a majority vote to increase the funding of the programme and to diversify the funding targets in some respects , as set out in Amendments Nos 19 , 9 and 15 . +as the rapporteur , I voiced my opposition to this , but I had to bow to the majority of the House . +one of the key amendments , in my view , is our exclusion of multinational corporations from eligibility for support under this financial instrument . +that , however , is exactly what the Commission and the Council have done , even though Parliament adopted the amendment by a large majority at the first reading . +that , in my opinion , is hypocrisy . +it divests our entire policy of any credibility . +I believe the European Commission should express itself quite clearly on this . +otherwise , I shall be more convinced than ever that our policy on the banana issue is rather too deeply steeped in hypocrisy . +there is a principle involved here , and we must apply it consistently . +I support this report because it takes account of the interests of the most disadvantaged suppliers . +small independent producers must be given special assistance and the multinational firms which possess banana plantations in several countries should not be eligible for assistance . +I also support this report because it stresses the importance of respecting social standards , working conditions and the environment and because it stipulates special support measures for fair trade bananas . +we socialists hope that assistance will be granted to improve quality and we believe that it is essential to help diversify production because , for many ACP countries , the banana is the only source of income . +in a few days , the WTO will rule on the import regime for bananas and therefore on the possible sanctions that might be taken by countries which consider themselves to be prejudiced by this regime . +I fear that the World Trade Organisation 's decision may once again serve American interests . +I believe that we have more than trade agreements with these countries : we have moral commitments . +now as then , Parliament , by a substantial majority , supports the Commission 's proposal in principle . some amendments have been put forward , and we would like to see them incorporated at the second reading . +in the interim , however , a critical event has taken place in the progress of what has become known as ' the banana war ' , and as a result , the debate has become political rather than technical . +what happened was that the United States showed its true colours and is now openly threatening the Union with trade reprisals against a list of European products if we do not modify our policy on protecting the banana production of ACP countries . +weakened by certain developments at home and abroad , the United States administration has been unable to withstand the enormous pressure exerted by a number of American banana multinationals , and is preparing to take the law into its own hands . +I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Commissioner Brittan on his forthright defence of the legitimacy and legality of our regulations at yesterday 's REX Committee meeting . +given the uncertainty of the current situation , I would ask the Commission , at the second reading , to accept Parliament 's suggestions as they appear in Mr Liese 's report . +the stress on diversification , Somalia 's special position , and not least , socially sustainable production and fair and supportive trading conditions , are definitely some of the report 's strong points . +these very points indicate the philosophy of the European Union , which gives us the right idea of the free market . +it is wrong to think of the free market as a market without rules and where everyone competes regardless of relative strength . +obviously that kind of free market would see abuse of power by the strongest economic operators or countries to the detriment of the others . +that is exactly what the European Union must do everything possible to prevent , by all necessary , useful and appropriate means . +it is precisely because we support this view of the free market that my group opposes Amendment No 9 to Article 1 ( 2 ) of this report , tabled by the ARE Group . +the original text talks about a special framework for banana producers , to be implemented for a maximum period not exceeding ten years starting on 1 January 1999 . +we believe that text should be maintained . +Mr President , Commissioner , any changes to the organisation of the market for bananas must not be to the detriment of Community or ACP producers . +though it may be too early to establish whether ACP banana suppliers have been adversely affected by the changes made , appropriate preventive measures should be taken , based on the values which underpin the principle of fair trade . +I would urge the Commission to take into account the amendments contained in the Liese report , particularly those inspired by the principle of fair trade , which only received cursory attention in the common position . +this is most disappointing . it is also unfortunate that the large multinationals may be able to receive aid from Union funds in ACP countries . +it simply would not make sense to help the rich instead of the poor . +Mr President , we have two symbolic issues before us this evening . +this issue has been around for many years in this House . +Europe produces around 800 000 to 830 000 tonnes of bananas from Guadeloupe , Crete , Martinique , the Canaries and Madeira . +we buy around 830 000 tonnes of bananas from the ACP countries , including the Côte d 'Ivoire and Cameroon . +and then there are the dollar bananas from Central America which the Germans particularly like . +initially there were two million tonnes of these , and they were subject to customs duties , as were cereal substitutes . +yet all this is not enough for the United States . +this smacks of hypocrisy , given all our talk of defending the financial interests of the European Union . +who are we to talk about the financial interests of the European Community ? +we are calling into question our regional policy in Crete , Madeira , the Canaries , Guadeloupe and Martinique . we are calling into question our cooperation policy with the ACP countries because the import licences are being called into question . +we are calling into question our human rights policy because , in Honduras , it is the multinational firm United Brand , now owned by Chiquita , which keeps order . +we are calling into question our social policy because the people producing these bananas are slaves earning only EUR 35 per month . +we are calling into question the superiority of European law because we are submitting to the law of Geneva and the World Trade Organisation . +and once again , faced with the United States ' Section 301 , our Europe of 370 million inhabitants , of the euro , a Europe with new power , is submitting in Kosovo , in Iraq and now on the issue of bananas . +we are toeing the US line . +I hope that we can slip on this banana skin in order to get back on track , but I doubt it . +on the whole the common position of the Council improves the original proposal for a regulation , thanks primarily to the European Parliament 's action at first reading . +on other points Parliament will back its own amendments , above all with a view to ensuring that small and independent producers can use the resources . +the Council 's common position accepts Parliament 's amendments designed to take account of the special position of Somalia and its banana producers . +this is the only commodity that unfortunate country can export to the European market and its fate largely depends on being able to maintain and strengthen banana production . +that is positive , but I would still point out that for the last two years , despite clear recommendations from the European Parliament , the Commission has frequently appeared to want to boycott Somali banana exports . +the country 's banana regions have been seriously damaged by the natural disaster which has struck in the last two years but , incredibly , the Union has decided not to respond with aid . +so the Union must immediately undertake to give Somali banana producers direct access to the assistance provided under the regulation we are debating . +this would be a very tangible way to encourage the rebirth of Somalia and prevent its definitive departure from the Community ' Banana Club ' . +Mr President , Commissioner , regardless of the validity of each side 's reasons , the banana issue cannot fail to shock because of the disproportionate reactions of the Americans . +just how disproportionate the current reaction is with regard to this product can be seen from the fact that the European Union has been pursuing a protectionist agricultural policy with regard to various goods produced in the United States itself for four decades now . +as there has never been such a reaction before , we can only conclude that the US administration is more concerned about one or two multinational firms producing bananas in Latin America than about its own farmers . +we are not therefore talking about rich regions but areas which understandably deserve some support . +this applies to the financial support currently being suggested , the level of which is to be determined shortly , thereby removing any doubt about the seriousness of our proposals . +finally , the retaliation that has been announced of limiting the imports of various products is also disproportionate and inappropriate because it will indiscriminately penalise countries , regions and sectors which have nothing to do with bananas . +Mr President , I want to concentrate on a single issue that was touched on just now by Mr Vecchi : the case of Somalia . +despite desperate appeals , the European Commission decided not to intervene in any way , either with European Social Fund money , STABEX resources , or any other kind of resources . +since last June all exports of bananas from Somalia have been suspended . either there are no supplies or such as do exist are not cheap enough , in short , they are not marketable . +now with this regulation Somali producers can finally lift up their heads . +well , now the organisation of Somali producers exists and is recognised at both continental and international level . +DG VIII , especially , must take this into account . +Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I should like firstly to thank the Committee on Development and Cooperation and in particular Mr Liese for the hard work put into this dossier . +before turning to the amendments , I should like to remind you briefly why this proposal is so important for the Commission . +last year the Council adopted the measures necessary to bring the common market organisation for bananas into conformity with WTO rules . +these have now been applied since 1 January and will radically alter the market conditions for traditional ACP banana suppliers . +in order to enable traditional ACP suppliers to maintain their presence on the EU market as agreed under the Lomé Convention , the Commission has in parallel put forward this proposal establishing a special framework for technical and financial assistance . +this support is intended to help them to adapt to the new market conditions and in particular to enhance the competitiveness of their production . +I think we are agreed on the need for this regulation and for the need to get it in place as soon as possible so that the traditional ACP suppliers can continue their efforts to improve their competitiveness . +this action is required whatever the outcome of the ongoing discussions in Geneva . +turning to the matter in hand , I should like to emphasise how much we see eye @-@ to @-@ eye on this proposal . +we have taken on board four specific amendments but our agreement goes much further than that . +let us take diversification . +we agreed that funding should be available for diversification projects where improvements in competitivity would not be feasible or sustainable . +we all know that there are parts of the banana industry in the traditional ACP countries where production will probably not survive in a more competitive EU market . +these farmers should be given assistance to diversify into other crops . +there is now new wording introduced in the common position to provide for this . +another area is social and environmentally @-@ friendly banana production , so @-@ called fair @-@ trade bananas . +this is an important facet of an ACP country strategy to improve its competitiveness . +this is why specific wording was added to the common position but I must stress that this is not a regulation about fair trade . +there are many other methods by which an ACP country can improve its banana sector in a sustainable way . +these include improving transport links and distribution , designing new marketing strategies and providing training and technical assistance to farmers . +it should also be recalled that the list of programme criteria is not a prescriptive nor an exhaustive one . +the wording has been kept simple to allow for the necessary flexibility . +another area where we agree is the need for open and transparent consultations . +this is part of good working practice to ensure that producer groups and banana growers associations are involved in the process of designing strategies for the banana sector . +we are already encouraging these discussions . +they are also an integral part of the ACP @-@ EU partnership . +specific wording does not need to be added to the regulation on this point . +there are one or two areas where we have somewhat divergent views . this is where we have not been able to accept your proposed amendments . +our arguments are the same as they were for the first reading in June . +one of these points is the provision of the direct aid to farmers , a form of income support . +this concept does not reflect our overall objective of improving the level of competitiveness of traditional ACP banana production . +providing income support will postpone the day when non @-@ competitive producers must leave the market . +it is a short @-@ term measure . +it will not produce a sustainable industry . +investments must be made to the infrastructure of the banana sector to unblock the bottlenecks , to produce an efficient industry for the countries as a whole . +to give you an example , one of the important producers , where the banana is very important to the economy , is St Lucia . +for those who do not know it , St Lucia is a very hilly country in which it will take you more than an hour to drive a distance of 20 km . +there the key to improvement of banana production , competitiveness and productivity will be to be able to water the crop on a drop @-@ by @-@ drop basis . +as some of the farms are relatively small , to do this they would have to get together . +so we started very early to try to form a strong farmers ' association so that they could share this kind of watering system . +but this also requires the support of the government so some infrastructure related to this major work will also be taken up by government . +therefore , the provision of such aid runs the risk of a challenge from our trading partners for being incompatible with international trade rules . +we also believe that regulations should not include specific budget figures in order not to prejudge the annual budgetary discussions as agreed in the Joint Declaration of 1982 . +the annual figure of EUR 45m is the correct one and additional money should not be set aside for urgent measures . +this will create expectations . +we would need to discuss what constitutes an urgent measure and in my opinion it will delay the implementation of this project . +all projects should be integrated as part of a country strategy within the global envelope envisaged . +nor should the door be left open to extend assistance beyond the ten years proposed . +this is not because I am absolutely convinced that ten years will be sufficient but because at this juncture we must have some radical changes as soon as possible in order to gain that competitiveness . +to give the idea of an extension at this stage would be to send a wrong message . +one final issue is the position on multinationals . +in this regard , the only one concerned , if I am correctly informed , is Fyffes in Surinam , Belize and the Windward Islands . +the reason we have some resistance is very simple . +it is not because we want to finance rich multinationals . +this would give us greater flexibility and would in the end be more effective regarding the country . +if you ask me if I expect multinationals to have a large share , the answer is No . +but we should allow this joint effort to be made if the multinational - in this case , Fyffes - wants to contribute . +I do not see why they should not co @-@ finance such efforts . +finally , I should like to say a word or two on Somalia . +this country , as you know , has been without a government as such for a long time . +therefore , it was impossible for it to ratify the revised Lomé IV convention , the one which was revised in Mauritius . +so , in principle and in theory Somalia was not entitled to any aid from the European Union . +and so we did . +what is the current difficulty in Somalia ? +it is not the definition of a quota or providing funds for assistance . +it is to identify who should be the one that should a grant a certificate for exporting bananas from Somalia . +there are some indications conveyed to us that one of the factions that is at war in Somalia is willing to have the possibility of certification . +this would be equivalent to financing the war effort of that specific faction . +that we cannot do . +that is the reason why discussions are continuing . +we want the association of producers to be the ones issuing the certificate rather than any political faction in Somalia . +I am confident that with the support of our Member States and in particular the efforts that Italy is deploying , we will be able to overcome these difficulties . +finally on the WTO panel , I am absolutely in agreement with those who say that it is not a technical problem any more . +on top of that , the fact that the United States is apparently not prepared to accept the rules of the WTO means that we will have to rethink this concept of globalised liberalisation . +my feeling is that if we leave this we turn a blind eye to the interests of the small and the poor and I do not think that Europe would be fulfilling its duties . +so far the Commission has stood very firm in this dispute . +I fully agree that Sir Leon Brittan has done a very good job . +but we must be aware that if we do not stand united , be it in Parliament or especially in the Council , we will weaken our position very much . +I sincerely hope that will not be the case . +the debate is closed . +the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. +universal telecommunications service +I want also to remind us all that the European Parliament 's support for the liberalisation process of telecommunications goes hand in hand with the introduction and implementation of universal service . +it is very clear that market forces cannot , at least in the short run , deliver on universal service . +if this does happen through market forces in the next year I shall be the first to congratulate and draw attention to this . +unfortunately , as the text of my report makes clear , there is a lack of information from the Member States on which to assess progress . +I give some examples : there is a lack of truly harmonised national data , there are failures to achieve uniform tariffs across an operational territory . +it is particularly disappointing that in half the Member States there has been a substantial rise in rental charges for the residential consumer . +of course , this weighs particularly heavily on the infrequent user , often elderly , housebound , who cuts down on telephone calls . +it is important , too , to draw attention to the disabled users . +disabled users on the whole in the Community still do not benefit from satisfactory , special arrangements . +indeed , the general trend seems to be that there is a penalty for residential users . +although charges have come down they have come down disproportionately in favour of international calls which of course heavily favour the business user . +I am not being critical of those reductions in charges but I am drawing attention to the unsatisfactory skew against the residential user . +I wanted to draw particular attention to Paragraph 9 in the report which talks about the lack of definition of affordability by the Member States . +without that definition of affordability it really does deprive consumers of a sound legal base with which to defend their interests . +after I had drafted this report , BEUC , the European Union consumers ' organisation , produced their own analysis on the implementation of the voice telephony directive . +like me , they recognised that it is comparatively early days . +nevertheless , the evidence contained in the BEUC report and the lack of satisfactory evidence supplied to the Commission give some cause for concern . +I will end on a personal note because I think the views of consumers in this field across the European Union really are important . +I tried to change my telephone . +formerly a British Telecom consumer I switched some 18 months ago to Ionica , a company that sadly has now gone out of business . +I transferred my number , as my colleague Mr van Velzen laid down and as the Commission rightly proposed . +when I now try and change to a cable company I am told that number portability is not possible . +if I want to keep my own number my only choice is to go back to British Telecom , the old public monopoly . +it was a salutary lesson for me that , in spite of all the efforts of the Commission and the efforts of the Parliament , in practical terms it is still very rare to find true effective competition at local level for the domestic consumer . +I am of course referring to the Internet . +another has so far failed to put forward any proposals . I am aware that reduced connection charges and free specially adapted equipment are available in many Member States . +I recognise that substantial progress has been made , but the final goal , the ideal , is yet to be achieved . +in addition , if we are serious about making the European Union increasingly cohesive , a determined effort is urgently needed to put in place the facilities which should be available to consumers in less populated areas . +universality of service in the telecommunications sector must be further promoted . I refer not only to take up but also to improvements in the quality of the service offered . +for instance , we should press for an across @-@ the @-@ board reduction in the waiting time for connection to the network or for supply , and of the time taken for repairs to be carried out . +in conclusion , Mr President , this report certainly represents a significant step forward , but a lot of ground remains to be covered . +our worst fears and expectations have been confirmed . +the promises and commitments made have not been fulfilled . +the liberalisation and privatisation of the sector has not led to the fall in prices for the economically weakest users which universal service should have provided as a result of the much vaunted virtues of competition . +it is true that the current competition in mobile telephony , in addition to causing changes in social behaviour , has altered the parameters of the telecommunications market . +Mr President , I too would like to join with my colleagues in welcoming the report by Mrs Read . +in particular it now gives us an opportunity to look at the question of liberalisation and its effect on the universal service question . +what is common to all the public utilities across Europe is the fact that they were originally established to ensure there was a social equality with regard to the distribution of services . +whether one looked at telecoms , post office services , water supplies and so on , there was this idea of universality . +no matter what part of a country one lived in one got the same level of service at the same cost as everybody else . +because of the advent of liberalisation and greater competition , which I welcome , let me hasten to add , we have also learned of some of the mistakes that can be made by just having a headlong rush into liberalisation . +there must be some restrictions and some controlling mechanisms and methods with regard to that liberalisation . +some of my colleagues have already touched on the points . +I would like to deal with four particular points : firstly , ensuring that there is no cherry @-@ picking of the most profitable and easily serviceable areas of telecoms . +secondly , dealing with special facilities for the elderly population , particularly in this year , the International Year of the Elderly . +when we look at the increase in the numbers of people who are over 55 years of age in the European Union there is a social necessity to ensure them ease of access to telecommunication networks at very low cost , sometimes at no cost at all . +to give you one example , in Ireland telephone line rental for people who are on the old age pension is free . +next , the disabled . +because the new technologies which have been brought forward do offer new opportunities for communications and for greater interaction of people with disabilities and the wider community that should be encouraged and given at a lower rate . +finally , with the Internet now being presented to us , we must ensure that this resource is tapped for the greater good not for exclusivity . +Mr President , I welcome the consideration given by the rapporteur to the aspects of social policy that have taken on a new dimension in the modern information society . +I also support the amendments that are designed to take account of these new factors . +we must , for example , be absolutely rigorous in ensuring that disabled people are given access to service models that meet their special needs . +the development of public access to the Internet , in schools and libraries for instance , is an extremely important matter to which this and other Parliaments ought to devote more attention in the future . +the information society must not lead to wider social disparities . +if access by part of the population to the information media is denied or obstructed , stark differences in education levels will result , and these could create a glaring inequality of opportunity in the job market . +Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , the liberalisation of the telecommunications sector was a pioneering strategy which not only represented another step from the single market towards a European domestic market , but also had a significant dimension in terms of employment . +this development was referred to when we assessed the implementation of the reform package . +the information society is currently responsible for every fourth new job in the European Union . +for that we owe our thanks to the Commission , and especially to Mr Bangemann . +the Read report makes the accessibility of the basic services at acceptable prices and standards of quality a prerequisite of our support for the present liberalisation process . +I would like to go further than that . +the provision of a universal service can ultimately be a logical result and product of liberalisation . +what exactly are the universal services ? +they are generally held to comprise a minimum range of telecommunications services of a certain quality that can be made available to all users at reasonable prices . +this includes access to standard public telephone services , such as 999 calls , directory enquiries and special facilities for people with particular disabilities . +this subject is therefore important in terms of the general confidence which the European technology of the future must enjoy . +it is also clear that in many areas , market forces cannot be given free rein from the outset . +that is why the concept of affordability is such a topical issue these days - and rightly so . +the affordability principle means that the Member States set geographical average prices , price ceilings and so forth . +one of the important aspects of this mechanism is the scope for easing unreasonable burdens on providers of universal services . +but I do support the Commission when it says that such measures can only apply until the market is competitive enough to exercise effective price control itself . +Mr President , I am standing in for my colleague , Mr Mendes Bota , and I must start by saying that telecommunications has now become a permanent part of our lives . +however , there are several points to be considered . +firstly , there is a great disparity between tariff trends in terms of installation costs and rental charges and between the costs of local , regional , national and international calls . +some countries have low costs , others have high costs , but this report does not give a clear and comparative view of the costs of using the European telecommunications networks in the various Member States . +we believe that the more open the telecommunications market becomes to competition from the private sector , the more responsible it will be for regulating itself and for ensuring a minimum harmonisation of the European tariff system . +secondly , it is clear that users on low incomes and the more peripheral and isolated regions are the sectors most prejudiced by the current tariff regimes . this is an aspect often neglected by the Member States . +thirdly , the use of the Internet has exploded , and it is now being adopted by individuals , companies and institutions . +however , it is in no way accessible to everyone and it is far from forming a basic instrument for the promotion of solidarity and equal treatment . +negotiations on creating an Internet card or code are continuing but the Internet remains outside the universal service in telecommunications . +we totally agree with the adoption of measures which will allow special tariffs to be granted to schools , libraries and other equivalent institutions and to charitable and non @-@ profit @-@ making organisations . +Mr President , may I express my sincere thanks to Mrs Read as well as to everyone else who has contributed to this discussion for their comments . +the Commission is trying to find sensible solutions to this diverse set of problems . +in the meantime , I should like to focus especially on four questions that have resurfaced in this discussion . +first there is the question how the Member States have established what affordability means . +some Member States , anticipating the amended voice telephony directive , have already introduced more stringent measures to protect consumers . +amongst other things , there are price @-@ monitoring and prepayment systems , particularly in the field of mobile telephony . +six Member States - Denmark , Germany , Spain , France , Finland and the United Kingdom - have already notified us that they have transposed the amended directive . +we expect that Belgium , Greece , Ireland , Italy , the Netherlands , Austria and Sweden will shortly announce similar measures . +as one speaker said in the course of today 's discussion , affordability depends to a great extent on income levels in individual Member States . +these vary widely . +average incomes in some areas are three or four times the average income in another . +for that reason we are really relying on the Member States , in accordance with the solidarity principle , to take greater responsibility in this area than we could take ourselves . +what we shall be able to do , however , is to provide details in the new report of the progress that has been made in implementing the stricter consumer safeguards . +the second question relates to support for low @-@ income users and disabled users , as well as for occasional users . +we have recommended special tariffs for such users precisely because we wish to counteract the first adverse effects of liberalisation that we , like others , expect to occur . +this , it should be said , has now been transposed into the national law of five Member States - not just of France , as the report stated , but also of Italy , the Netherlands , Sweden and the United Kingdom . +the new report will show us how things have developed from there . +the Commission , like Parliament , is anxious to ensure that the new legislation is actually benefiting these groups of users . +how should the operators of the universal service be chosen ? +the Commission has no objections to any system that ensures the provision of a convenient , cost @-@ effective universal service . +the services may be put out to tender , but they may also be based on a cost calculation , prices then being fixed to cover only the net cost of the service . +that is why we do not wish to come down on the side of any particular process . +the final question concerns the widening of public access to the Internet and especially the use of the Internet by public institutions . +that is not the case everywhere , Mr President , and Mrs Read was right to criticise this state of affairs . +but that is now in the past . +we have certainly been observing price reductions ; special rates for schools and other special tariffs are in no way inconsistent with the rules of competition , and we encourage these as long as the marginal cost is covered . +I can promise you that we intend to re @-@ examine the universal service in connection with the review of legislation scheduled for the end of 1999 , and that we shall subsequently communicate the results to Parliament . +thank you , Commissioner . +the debate is closed . +the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. +public procurement +Mr President , as colleagues will know , this report offers a broad outline of the progress we have made and should be making in the immediate future on the question of public procurement . +in general , the Commission is showing that our past discussions during the debate on the Green Paper have been listened to . +what we now need is to ensure that although the broad approach is right , the detail must be equally precise , firstly , in terms of social and environmental standards and sustainability . +following the adoption of the Amsterdam Treaty where the EU underlined its commitment to the greening of European policies , we need to clarify how these principles will affect public procurement legislation . +Members may remember from previous discussions that we asked the Commission for an assurance that there would be horizontal harmonisation of EU directives . +it is ridiculous if the right DG does not know what the left DG is doing . +the same applies to parliamentary committees . +it is even worse if we are aware of the discrepancies but do not take positive action to eliminate them . +in this way we have to confront the problems of building a certain model within our Union which is not always reflected in the directives we pass . +we have further requirements placed upon us by global or international commitments . +we must recognise these . +this is not a plea for one policy position or another but a recognition of the need for clear legislation which builds upon a secure base and thus becomes operational . +I shall say again - and let us be clear on this - we are not recommending a particular policy . +we are recognising the need for clarity , simplicity and applicability . +again we need clear guidelines on how this can be operationalised . +the Commission has promised a report on this . +we wait with bated breath . +we want to see how they are taking forward the principles of clarity , simplicity and legal applicability and making public procurement legislation pertinent , effective and enforceable within our modern society . +any further legislation put forward now must cover these areas . +this point is important . +we are already looking to exempt telecoms from the procurement directives . +I do not think anyone would dispute that , generally , the choice available to the average user is increasing . +there may be some differences still which can be identified at national level but it is clear that the process of liberalisation in this sector is irreversible . +however , we are now also looking at the future liberalisation and possible exemption from procurement rules of other sectors . +there are a couple of issues here . +firstly , we are waiting for the Commission to come forward with proposals for the process which they intend to use for these sectors : which article , what will be the criteria for deciding who can or cannot apply . +secondly , we go back to the point we made at the very beginning of the Green Paper negotiations , namely the issue of competitiveness . +we must never forget that procurement legislation exists to benefit and protect the consumer . +that is the reason why we favour competition . +retaining consumer choice will be a key element in proving that real competition exists . +as I have said before , new simple procedures must not undermine the principles of best practice through full competition . +I am aware that getting a fixed definition of what constitutes competition is not going to be easy . +it is not our aim to make it harder but if European industry is not to continue being disadvantaged by a requirement to prove de jure and de facto competition , it is a challenge we have to face . +we have tabled an amendment to this effect and hope the House will support us . +I wish to make just one oral amendment tomorrow . +I should like to thank the Commission for listening . +I spoke to Mr Monti outside . +I have another engagement now and I know he will understand my reason for leaving . +I am very grateful to Mr Tappin for incorporating many of our conclusions into his report . +this is not the first time we find ourselves debating this subject . +I have to say , Commissioner , that I am quite disappointed that the European Commission has not had the courage to take an important step forward in this communication , but has settled for an interpretative text here . +we for our part are convinced that ' soft law ' is not enough . +the practice surrounding social clauses differs widely in the various Member States . +there are huge difficulties of interpretation and so we think that clear legislation is required . +I shall focus on two points here . +firstly , public contracts must indeed be adaptable to the needs of the market , but the market must not be abused , Commissioner , as a way of weakening social legislation . +contract guidelines must therefore explicitly state that international and national social legislation must be respected , as well as collective labour agreements , both by main contractors and subcontractors . +secondly , very many Member States and local authorities use public contracts to take positive measures to help the long @-@ term unemployed , the integration of migrants or the launch of neighbourhood campaigns . +the Court has clearly ruled that such positive measures are not in conflict with the principles of competition . +but to avoid confusion , Commissioner , the guidelines must state very clearly that positive measures are admissible and in what way social clauses can be introduced . +now that the United Kingdom too , under Labour , has radically altered its position on social clauses in public contracts , I look forward to seeing how the Commission will respond to our recommendations . +Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , the Commission has issued a communication on public procurement : it wishes to establish a legal framework , to simplify procedures , and bring a degree of flexibility to the market . +in addition , however , it is important to bear in mind the broader social objectives : principles of humanity , the demands of society and the working principles of the public sector , which are not always directly compatible with models of private enterprise . +I would like to thank my colleague , Mr Tappin , for an excellent report . +he feels that it is necessary to harmonise the social principles of the Union with EU legislation . +workers ' rights , such as minimum pay , working hours and health and safety , have not been such obvious issues to those who have profited from competitive bidding . +why , for example , in the privatisation of transport , has it turned out that old drivers are being got rid of while at the same time they have started using old buses ? +in developing EU procurement legislation the regulations need to be tightened up , and we have to make methods of monitoring their enforcement more effective . +obviously , there have been problems in adhering to the content of directives . +the are even grounds for suspecting that it is not just a question of practical problems , such as legal complications or problems of varying labour market cultures . +what if it were also that bidding for public procurement contracts is not compatible with other principles that apply in the public sector ? +public corporations have also had to meet certain social policy objectives while involved in the business of procurement . +the quality of services has to be improved , employment figures have to rise , and environmental questions have to be tackled . +I await the report promised by the Commission on the total impact of procurement . +both the Commission communication and Mr Tappin 's report raise the issue of the need to make it easier for SMEs to access the public procurement market . that is only right . +it is important as there appears to be a danger of cartels forming connected with bidding for procurement contracts . +SMEs , and especially those that are obliged to observe labour legislation and environmental standards , need more information and training , however . +that is particularly important when it comes to using information technology as mentioned by the rapporteur , and that too has to be broadly applied , as it speeds up and simplifies processes . +we should also remember that local authorities , because of their democratic nature , generally have a better sense of morality than the business world . +Mr President , the directives on public procurement were an important step in our efforts to make the European market more competitive and more open . +a good deal has changed in Europe since the first directive in this area . +a sector like telecommunications has been liberalised , and there have been optimistic signs here and there concerning public contracts . +generally speaking , red tape was once again the villain of the piece . +the procedures which business and industry had to grapple with were unbelievably complex and inefficient . +we talk of a 720 billion euro market which really must be opened up if we ever want to have a truly single market . +but at what cost ? +the directive provides for thresholds whereby it is no longer possible , above a given threshold , to tender in a private or national capacity . +in principle , that is a good thing . +the problem is that the incredibly complex bureaucracy involved makes it virtually impossible for small and medium @-@ sized businesses to get a look in . +the fact is that under the system , framework contracts are not really feasible . +large companies simply decide to have nothing further to do with public contracts and concentrate solely on the ordinary market . +the concept of the economically most advantageous bid is also frequently understood as meaning the cheapest bid . +that works against sustainable building methods , for example , since public authorities are interested only in the lowest price . +many authorities have no provision for the service of capital , a system which is short @-@ sighted and expensive for the citizen in the long run . +it is a poor system for small businesses , which do not have the longer @-@ term strength of a bigger company that can calculate its profit out of capital resources . +so it is right that the Commission should give special attention to SMEs . +in the meantime , a large or medium @-@ sized company can use digital systems to obtain information on published calls for tender . +but there is a good deal of ground to cover between the announcement of an opportunity and actually securing a contract . +in addition to the expense of putting together a bid , the firm or consortium has to demonstrate that it is financially sound and has enough experience in the field in question . +registration systems may be the answer here . +these mean that companies only have to prove once that they are sound and competent , but for an authority which does not put work out to tender often , it makes no sense to set up a system of this kind . +I have therefore tabled an amendment jointly with Mr Langen and my group , an amendment which won the backing of the Committee on Economic Affairs , to have the threshold amounts increased . +resumption of the session +I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Friday 17 December 1999 , and I would like once again to wish you a happy new year in the hope that you enjoyed a pleasant festive period . +although , as you will have seen , the dreaded ' millennium bug ' failed to materialise , still the people in a number of countries suffered a series of natural disasters that truly were dreadful . +you have requested a debate on this subject in the course of the next few days , during this part @-@ session . +in the meantime , I should like to observe a minute ' s silence , as a number of Members have requested , on behalf of all the victims concerned , particularly those of the terrible storms , in the various countries of the European Union . +please rise , then , for this minute ' s silence . +( the House rose and observed a minute ' s silence ) +Madam President , on a point of order . +you will be aware from the press and television that there have been a number of bomb explosions and killings in Sri Lanka . +one of the people assassinated very recently in Sri Lanka was Mr Kumar Ponnambalam , who had visited the European Parliament just a few months ago . +would it be appropriate for you , Madam President , to write a letter to the Sri Lankan President expressing Parliament 's regret at his and the other violent deaths in Sri Lanka and urging her to do everything she possibly can to seek a peaceful reconciliation to a very difficult situation ? +yes , Mr Evans , I feel an initiative of the type you have just suggested would be entirely appropriate . +if the House agrees , I shall do as Mr Evans has suggested . +Madam President , on a point of order . +I would like your advice about Rule 143 concerning inadmissibility . +my question relates to something that will come up on Thursday and which I will then raise again . +the Cunha report on multiannual guidance programmes comes before Parliament on Thursday and contains a proposal in paragraph 6 that a form of quota penalties should be introduced for countries which fail to meet their fleet reduction targets annually . +it says that this should be done despite the principle of relative stability . +I believe that the principle of relative stability is a fundamental legal principle of the common fisheries policy and a proposal to subvert it would be legally inadmissible . +I want to know whether one can raise an objection of that kind to what is merely a report , not a legislative proposal , and whether that is something I can competently do on Thursday . +that is precisely the time when you may , if you wish , raise this question , i.e. on Thursday prior to the start of the presentation of the report . +Madam President , coinciding with this year ' s first part @-@ session of the European Parliament , a date has been set , unfortunately for next Thursday , in Texas in America , for the execution of a young 34 year @-@ old man who has been sentenced to death . we shall call him Mr Hicks . +at the request of a French Member , Mr Zimeray , a petition has already been presented , which many people signed , including myself . +however , I would ask you , in accordance with the line which is now constantly followed by the European Parliament and by the whole of the European Community , to make representations , using the weight of your prestigious office and the institution you represent , to the President and to the Governor of Texas , Mr Bush , who has the power to order a stay of execution and to reprieve the condemned person . +this is all in accordance with the principles that we have always upheld . +thank you , Mr Segni , I shall do so gladly . +indeed , it is quite in keeping with the positions this House has always adopted . +Madam President , I should like to draw your attention to a case in which this Parliament has consistently shown an interest . +it is the case of Alexander Nikitin . +all of us here are pleased that the courts have acquitted him and made it clear that in Russia , too , access to environmental information is a constitutional right . +now , however , he is to go before the courts once more because the public prosecutor is appealing . +we know , and we have stated as much in very many resolutions indeed , including specifically during the last plenary part @-@ session of last year , that this is not solely a legal case and that it is wrong for Alexander Nikitin to be accused of criminal activity and treason because of our involvement as the beneficiaries of his findings . +these findings form the basis of the European programmes to protect the Barents Sea , and that is why I would ask you to examine a draft letter setting out the most important facts and to make Parliament 's position , as expressed in the resolutions which it has adopted , clear as far as Russia is concerned . +yes , Mrs Schroedter , I shall be pleased to look into the facts of this case when I have received your letter . +Madam President , I would firstly like to compliment you on the fact that you have kept your word and that , during this first part @-@ session of the new year , the number of television channels in our offices has indeed increased considerably . +but , Madam President , my personal request has not been met . +although there are now two Finnish channels and one Portuguese one , there is still no Dutch channel , which is what I had requested because Dutch people here like to be able to follow the news too when we are sent to this place of exile every month . +I would therefore once more ask you to ensure that we get a Dutch channel as well . +Mrs Plooij @-@ van Gorsel , I can tell you that this matter is on the agenda for the Quaestors ' meeting on Wednesday . +it will , I hope , be examined in a positive light . +Madam President , can you tell me why this Parliament does not adhere to the health and safety legislation that it actually passes ? +why has no air quality test been done on this particular building since we were elected ? +why has there been no Health and Safety Committee meeting since 1998 ? +why has there been no fire drill , either in the Brussels Parliament buildings or the Strasbourg Parliament buildings ? +why are there no fire instructions ? +why have the staircases not been improved since my accident ? +why are no @-@ smoking areas not enforced ? +it seems absolutely disgraceful that we pass legislation and do not adhere to it ourselves . +Mrs Lynne , you are quite right and I shall check whether this has actually not been done . +I shall also refer the matter to the College of Quaestors , and I am certain that they will be keen to ensure that we comply with the regulations we ourselves vote on . +Madam President , Mrs Díez González and I had tabled questions on certain opinions of the Vice @-@ President , Mrs de Palacio , which appeared in a Spanish newspaper . +the competent services have not included them in the agenda on the grounds that they had been answered in a previous part @-@ session . +I would ask that they reconsider , since this is not the case . +the questions answered previously referred to Mrs de Palacio ' s intervention , on another occasion , and not to these comments which appeared in the ABC newspaper on 18 November . +Mr Berenguer Fuster , we shall check all this . +I admit that , at present , the matter seems to be somewhat confused . +we shall therefore look into it properly to ensure that everything is as it should be . +Madam President , I should like to know if there will be a clear message going out from Parliament this week about our discontent over today 's decision refusing to renew the arms embargo on Indonesia , considering that the vast majority in this Parliament have endorsed the arms embargo in Indonesia in the past ? +today 's decision not to renew the embargo is extremely dangerous considering the situation there . +so Parliament should send a message , since that is the wish of the vast majority . +it is irresponsible of EU Member States to refuse to renew the embargo . +as people have said , the situation there is extremely volatile . +there is , in fact , a risk of a military coup in the future . +we do not know what is happening . +so why should EU arms producers profit at the expense of innocent people ? +in any event , this question is not presently included among the requests for topical and urgent debate on Thursday . +agenda +the next item is the verification of the final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 13 January pursuant to Rule 110 of the Rules of Procedure . +no amendments have been proposed relating to Monday and Tuesday . +relating to Wednesday : +the Group of the Party of European Socialists requests that a Commission statement be included on its strategic objectives for the next five years and on the administrative reform of the Commission . +I would like Mr Barón Crespo , who made the request , to speak to propose it . that is , if he so wishes , of course . +then we shall follow the usual procedure , hearing one speaker in favour and one against . +Madam President , the presentation of the Prodi Commission ' s political programme for the whole legislature was initially a proposal by the Group of the Party of European Socialists which was unanimously approved by the Conference of Presidents in September and which was also explicitly accepted by President Prodi , who reiterated his commitment in his inaugural speech . +this commitment is important because the Commission is a body with a monopoly of initiative in accordance with the Treaties and , therefore , basically dictates this Parliament ' s political and legislative activity for the next five years . +I would also like to point out , Madam President , that this Parliament voted to express its confidence in President Prodi during the previous legislature . it did so again during this legislature , in July , and then , in September , it voted once more to approve the whole Commission . +there has therefore been enough time for the Commission to prepare its programme and for us to become familiar with it and explain it to our citizens . +to this end , I would like to remind you of the resolution of 15 September , which recommended that the proposal be presented as soon as possible . +the events of last week - which originated outside the Conference of Presidents , that Conference being used simply to corroborate and ratify decisions taken elsewhere - present us with a dilemma . either the Commission is not ready to present this programme , in which case it should clarify it . +according to its President , it is in a position to do so . +given that the Commission is represented by Vice @-@ President de Palacio , I believe that , before voting , it would help if the Commission could let us know how ready it is to present this programme , as agreed . alternatively , Parliament is not ready to examine this programme , as some appear to be suggesting . +my Group believes that since a parliament is meant to listen , debate and reflect , there can be no justification whatsoever for this delay and we believe that , if the Commission is ready to do so , we still have time to re @-@ establish the original agreement between Parliament and the Commission and proceed in a manner which fulfils our duty to our fellow citizens . +therefore , Madam President , I would ask you to request that the Commission express its opinion on this issue and that we then proceed to the vote . +( applause from the PSE Group ) +Madam President , I really am quite astonished at Mr Barón Crespo ' s behaviour and the fact that he is now asking for this item to be put on Wednesday 's agenda . +Mr Barón Crespo , you were unable to attend the Conference of Presidents last Thursday . +I am not criticising this ; it happens from time to time that people send someone to represent them . +Mr Hänsch represented you on this occasion . +in the Conference of Presidents , we had an in @-@ depth discussion . +your Group was alone in advocating what you are saying now . +we then put it to a vote . +as you know , each chairman has the same number of votes as his Group has Members . +there was a vote on this matter . +as I recall , the outcome of this vote was 422 votes to 180 with a few abstentions . +this means that all the Groups with the exception of the non @-@ attached Members - but , of course , they are not a Group - were in agreement ; only your Group thought that we should proceed as you have proposed here . +all of the others were of a different opinion . +that was the decision . +I should now like to comment on the issue itself . +we have confidence in the Commission and in Romano Prodi and , after a difficult procedure , as everyone knows , the vast majority of our Group supported the vote of confidence in Romano Prodi and the Commission . +we believe , however , that the Commission 's strategic plan needs to be debated within a proper procedural framework , not only on the basis of an oral statement here in the European Parliament , but also on the basis of a document which is adopted in the Commission and which describes this programme over the five @-@ year period . +there is no such document ! +the Commission will present its programme for the year 2000 in February . +we have said , very well , if the Commission does not wish to introduce the 2000 programme as early as January then we will do it in February . +we have agreed to this . +after all , we do not wish to quarrel with the Commission ; if at all possible , we believe that the Commission and Parliament need to tread the same path . +however , we in Parliament also have a supervisory role with regard to the Commission and we do not have to agree with everything which comes out of the Commission . +I should like us to be able to do a reasonable amount of preparation for the debate on the five @-@ year programme in our Groups . +you cannot prepare if you hear a statement in this House and have no idea of its content . +the fact that the subjects are connected also suggests that we should hold the debate on both programmes together . +that is why my Group firmly rejects the proposal made by the Socialist Group . +( applause from the PPE @-@ DE Group ) +I propose that we vote on the request of the Group of the Party of European Socialists that the Commission statement on its strategic objectives should be reinstated . +( Parliament rejected the request ) President . +still on the subject of Wednesday ' s sitting , I have another proposal regarding the oral question on capital tax . +the PPE @-@ DE Group is requesting that this item be taken off the agenda . +is there a member who wishes to speak on behalf of this Group to propose this ? +Madam President , I can hear a ripple of laughter from the Socialists . I was told that large sections of the Socialist Group were also keen to have this item taken off the agenda , because at the vote in the Conference of Presidents no vote was received from the working group of Members of the Socialist Group responsible for this matter . +I do not know whether this information is correct , but the PPE @-@ DE Group would , in any case , be grateful if this item were removed because Parliament has addressed this issue several times already . +decisions have also been adopted against a tax of this kind . +that is why my Group moves that this item be taken off the agenda . +thank you , Mr Poettering . +we shall now hear Mr Wurtz speaking against this request . +Madam President , I would firstly like to point out Mr Poettering ' s lack of logic . +he has just been preaching to the Group of the Party of European Socialists because they went back on a decision taken in a perfectly clear manner at the Conference of Presidents , and now he is doing just the same . +we discussed that matter and we were unanimous , with the exception of the PPE and ELDR Groups . +as my fellow chairmen will recall , I even mentioned that it was not a matter of knowing whether one was for or against the Tobin tax , but of whether one dared to hear what the Commission and the Council thought of it . +it is not a lot to ask . +I therefore repeat the proposal that this oral question to the Commission and the Council should be retained so that we can find out , once and for all , the positions of these two bodies regarding the proposal which is relatively modest but which would give a clear message to public opinion , particularly after the tide of feeling generated by the failure of the Seattle Conference . +we shall proceed to vote on the PPE @-@ DE Group ' s request that the oral question regarding the capital tax be withdrawn from the agenda . +( Parliament rejected the request , with 164 votes for , 166 votes against and 7 abstentions ) +Madam President , I would like to thank Mr Poettering for advertising this debate . +thank you very much . +Madam President , has my vote been counted ? +I was unable to vote electronically , since I do not have a card . +my vote was " in favour " . +indeed , if we add the two Members who have declared themselves , then the result of the vote would be .... +Madam President , the Presidency has already declared the result of the vote . +there is no room for amendments . +Madam President , in the earlier vote - and I will abide by your ruling on this matter - on the question of the strategic plan of the Commission I indicated that I would like to speak in advance of the vote on behalf of my Group . +that did not happen . +I would appreciate it if , on the close of this item of business , I might be allowed to give an explanation of vote on behalf of my Group . +this is an important matter . +it would be useful for the record of the House to state how people perceive what we have just done in the light of their own political analysis . +Madam President , I do not wish to reopen the debate , but I had also asked for the floor , to comment on Mr Barón Crespo 's motion . +you did not call me either . +I regret this , but the vote has already been taken and the decision is made so let us leave the matter there . +I am terribly sorry , Mr Hänsch and Mr Cox . +I did not see you asking to speak . +even so , I think the positions are quite clear and they shall be entered in the Minutes . +when we adopt the Minutes for today ' s sitting tomorrow , then any Members who think the positions have not been explained clearly enough may ask for amendments . +this seems to me to be a workable solution . +of course , the Minutes for tomorrow ' s sitting will take into account any additional explanations . +I think this is a better solution than proceeding now to extremely time @-@ consuming explanations of votes . +Mr Cox , Mr Hänsch , would this be acceptable to you ? +Madam President , if the vote records correctly how my Group voted I shall not , and cannot , object to that . +if your ruling is that I cannot give an explanation of vote , I accept that but with reservations . +we shall pay particular attention to the wording of the Minutes , as we always do , of course . +if they do not properly reflect the positions adopted , then we may correct them , if necessary . +( the order of business was adopted thus amended ) +safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods +Commissioner , Madam President , ladies and gentlemen , I can be quite frank in saying that I welcome the Council 's common position on harmonising the training of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road , rail or inland waterway . +firstly , we needed to take action on a formal level in order to meet the requirements of Directive 96 / 35 / EC , which obliges the Member States to appoint safety advisers and to organise the training , instruction and examination of these people but does not explain this explicitly . +secondly , by adopting this directive we achieve a ) an increase in safety when dangerous goods are both transported and transhipped ; b ) a reduction in distortions of competition resulting from wide variations in national training structures and training costs and c ) equal opportunities for safety advisers on the European labour market . +thirdly , this directive , as it currently stands in the common position , guarantees - in particular because it confines itself exclusively to minimum standards - a high degree of flexibility and modest regulation by the European Union ; by adopting it we contribute to the Member States ' bearing a high level of individual responsibility . +all of this is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and is therefore to be greatly welcomed . +our amendments from the first reading have , I believe , been taken into account very satisfactorily . +they have either been accepted or transposed with no change in the substance , or they have been rejected because the corresponding European arrangements have not been included , for example a system of penalties for violations of the rules or a complex classification structure for related groups of questions . +the one unanimously adopted amendment of the Committee on Regional Policy and Transport , which concerns the timetable for implementing the directive , is something which I would urge you to support . +by not setting a specific date for the Member States to implement the directive and instead giving them a period of three months after its entry into force , we are introducing a flexibility clause which ensures that the directive will be implemented without delay . +I would urge you to endorse this . +as an Austrian , I still have a vivid memory , as , I believe , we all do , of the catastrophe which cost so many human lives last year in the Tauern Tunnel , where subsequent work to rebuild the parts of the tunnel which had been destroyed in this fire continued for many months at huge expense . +the renovation project , which lasted for months , cut off this important route between the north and south of Europe . +the traffic which had to be diverted because of this stretched the patience of many thousands of people in the EU to the limit . +in fact , all hell broke loose in some municipalities in my province . +prevention has to be our answer to disasters of this kind and this draft directive is an important step towards well @-@ trained safety advisers being available , so that the right action is taken in good time . +all the same , we must not content ourselves with enacting European law to ensure greater safety . +we also need to follow this up and make sure that our rules are transposed by the Member States in good time and - even more importantly - we need to ensure that they are also applied afterwards . +please let this not be yet another sector where we subsequently have to lament the lack of enforcement . +I should like to address one final point . we must not content ourselves with sealing another hole in the safety net and shutting our eyes to the fact that , where transport safety in Europe is concerned , there is still much more to be done . +in this context , I should like to make a request and ask the Commissioner responsible , who is with us here today , to table an appropriate text as soon as possible with a view to continuing to make it safer for traffic to transit tunnels in the future , so that we in Europe do not have to experience any more such disasters on this scale . +Madam President , first of all I should like to thank Mr Koch for his report which has , at its heart , the issue of transport safety . +the report looks at the issue of harmonising the examination requirements for safety advisors working in the areas of transportation of dangerous goods by road , rail and inland waterway . +I congratulate him on his excellent report . +the rapporteur has pointed out to the House that in its common position the Council has accepted six of Parliament 's ten amendments put forward at first reading and that the substance of Parliament 's other amendments has been retained . +my Group will therefore support the common position and looks forward to the enactment of the legislation which will provide us with yet another tool in our fight to make transport in the European Union as safe as possible . +when it comes to safety my Group will always support any initiatives to improve transport safety . +we still have a lot of work to do in this area as recent events have proved . +Madam President , I would like to make a few comments . +I would like , first of all , to thank the rapporteur for his exceptionally accurate and technical work on the report and , secondly , the Commission for the proposal it has submitted . +we are concerned here with the harmonisation of examination requirements but also , in fact , with minimum requirements . +this is a pity , in a sense . +needless to say , safety on roads , railways and inland waterways is of key importance and , given the international nature of these types of transport , training for safety advisors should also be harmonised , therefore , as well as the requirements of the new ADR , for example , which is under way . +this is important , but so is enforcement and there are , of course , a number of reasons why we need to pay particular attention to this . +just think of the road accidents which have occurred over recent years , for example in Belgium , the Netherlands and a number of other countries where lorries carrying dangerous goods continued to drive in foggy conditions when really they should have pulled off the road instead . +or ships from Eastern Europe which moor adjacent to ships over here , with all the obvious risks that this entails . +furthermore , it has transpired that research in the ports in Belgium , Finland , but also in Japan has shown that 50 % of containers with partially dangerous cargo are not delivered correctly for shipment . +in short , the issue is an important one . +if we look at the situation where safety advisers are concerned , in a number of countries it is compulsory to employ such safety advisers in companies as from 1 January of this year . +there will be major problems with enforcing this rule at present , especially with smaller companies , as these cannot afford safety advisors . +these smaller companies either dispose of their cargo or mix it with other cargo , which causes problems . +it is therefore also being requested that ISO 9002 certificates possibly include the finer details of these activities in the form of annual reports and company analyses . +the work is done . all that remains is the business of enforcement . +I would like to mention one final point . +with regard to enforcement , proper agreements must also be concluded with the Eastern European countries because they will not enter into treaties which deal with this matter until 1 July 2001 , that is to say in eighteen months ' time . +this gives them a competitive edge for the interim period . +this is not in itself anything dreadful , but we should prioritise particularly the safety aspects for goods transported by road , rail and inland waterways and incorporate these , as part of the acquis communautaire , as soon as possible and present them to the acceding states . +Madam President , the importance of transport safety is highlighted on a regular basis in this Parliament and rightly so . +the ever increasing volume of goods passing through Europe entails all kinds of risks , known and unknown , for employees and the social environment . +those having to deal with these risks should therefore meet stringent requirements . +the relevant standards which have been laid down in another Directive , 95 / 35 / EC , seem sufficiently adequate to advise people in a responsible manner on the organisation of the transport of dangerous goods . +I am very pleased that agreement has also been reached with the Council on minimum standards regarding examinations , although I would have preferred it if uniform , set standards and modules had been established , so that certificates would be of equal value internationally . +this , however , does not seem feasible . +finally , the amendment tabled by the rapporteur is perfectly logical and I can , therefore , give it my wholehearted support . +Mr President , Commissioner , I should first like to congratulate Mr Koch on his reports which , though technical , are nonetheless of very great significance for safety . +I should like to make just a few comments . +firstly , I should like to ask the Commissioner - and I am convinced that my request will fall on fertile ground - to ensure that more attention is paid to the issue of safety , be it on the roads , on the waterways or at sea . +considering that it is only today that we are dealing with a Commission proposal first made on 19 March 1998 , even though Parliament responded relatively quickly , this time lag is a little too long . +this is not just the fault of the Commission , but I believe that we need to take action more quickly so as to achieve harmonisation in this area as well . +my second point has already been mentioned : it concerns the minimum standards . +in principle , I believe that in many cases where transport is concerned we should be working towards increased flexibility and country @-@ specific rules . +however , when it comes to safety , I am rather sceptical because safety in Sweden , for example , is in principle no different from safety in Germany , Italy or Austria . +I can live with these minimum standards , but I would ask the Commission to monitor the situation very carefully . +should flexibility of this kind result in there being inadequate rules in some countries then we should work towards greater harmonisation . +my third point has also been mentioned already . +as you know , like Mr Rack , I come from a transit country , where this issue plays a particularly important role . +we do not want to make the conditions of competition worse for some countries unilaterally and improve them for countries such as Austria or other transit countries . +but I believe that we should do all we can to keep the transport of dangerous goods to a minimum , in all countries , whether they are transit countries or not . +Mr President , I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur , Mr Koch , on his magnificent work and his positive cooperation with the Commission with regard to improving the texts and presenting this report and this proposal ; in the end there is only one amendment on the requirements for the aptitude examination for safety advisers in the transport of dangerous goods by road , rail or inland waterway . +we understand that it is important that the two institutions - Parliament and Commission - cooperate and work together and that the current cooperation with the Committee on Regional Policy , and in particular the transport group , is magnificent . +the common position includes practically all of the amendments accepted by the Commission and harmonises the minimum examination requirements for safety advisers and , at second reading , we can accept the amendment on the proposed date , which is much more realistic than the one originally suggested by the Commission , bearing in mind that we have now spent several years debating this question . +very briefly , I would like to thank the various Members for their interventions and to tell you that safety is one of the Commission ' s priorities in the field of transport . +as Mr Simpson has said very correctly , this is a process which we can never take for granted or regard as having come to an end . +the process of increasing safety margins and safety guarantees in transport is a process which must be improved day by day . +in this regard , I would also like to refer very briefly to the problems of the tunnels , which Messrs Rack and Swoboda have referred to , which , in the case of Austria , is doubtless a very sensitive issue , and great effort should be made to improve their safety . +in one of the worst accidents to have occurred recently , the goods being transported were not dangerous in themselves . +margarine and a few kilos of paint which , in principle , do not present risks , led to a genuine disaster . +therefore , we will have to see how the requirements guaranteeing the maximum degree of safety can be further improved . +finally , I would like to say that we have to consider safety in all types of transport . +this week we will be holding a debate here on the safety of sea transport , in light of the Erika disaster , and in the course of this year we will have to discuss our objectives in terms of the safety of air transport . +but I would like to say that safety is a priority objective for the Commission . +as I will say in the debate on the Erika disaster , we do not wait until there is a disaster to deal with the question of safety , but we work on it even when there are no such circumstances , which simply serve to demonstrate the urgency for an effective response to this type of problem . +I would like to repeat my appreciation to all the speakers and especially to the rapporteur , Mr Koch . +the debate is closed . +the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. +transport of dangerous goods by road +delays in the CEN ' s work are now making it difficult to apply this very directive . +in particular , annexes cannot be adapted to take account of technical and industrial developments . +I regret this since we are having to take action because others have not done their job . +in this respect , I accept this proposal to amend Directive 94 / 55 / EC which has been tabled for discussion today . +should the European Union fail to take action , then Member States would be obliged to amend their national legislation for a very brief period , until the CEN completes its work , which would cause unnecessary cost and uncertainty . +the amendment to the directive on today 's agenda does not therefore affect the existing harmonisation of the transport of dangerous goods in the Community . +it merely prolongs transitional rules by postponing deadlines , deletes provisions which are no longer applicable , and lays down the procedures for a ) carrying out the ad hoc transportation of dangerous goods and b ) enacting less stringent national regulations , in particular for the transport of very small amounts of dangerous goods within strictly defined local areas . +the amendment to the directive is consequently in full accordance with the principle of subsidiarity ; the Member States obtain more powers . +the Commission decides whether the Member States may impose certain rules of their own . +in so doing , it is supported by a committee of experts on the transport of dangerous goods under the regulatory procedure . +the procedures for the exercise of these implementing powers conferred on the Commission were laid down afresh in the Council Decision of June 1999 . +the proposal to be discussed today , to amend the directive on the transport of dangerous goods by road , dates from May 1999 , however , and could not therefore take account of the latest comitology procedure . +two of the amendments tabled and adopted unanimously by the committee relate precisely to this amended comitology procedure . +we would like to ensure that there is a reference to this as early as the recitals and that the period within which the Council has to make a decision - which is not clearly worded - is set at a maximum of three months . +in addition , the need for greater transparency has been pointed out . +a further amendment allows the Member States to impose more stringent requirements , in particular for vacuum tanks , if work is done or goods are transported as a priority in temperatures well below -20ºC . +this is in the special interest of northern European regions . +a final amendment is intended to ensure that tanks and tankers put into service between 1 January 1997 and the entry into force of this directive may continue to be used provided that they have been constructed and maintained in accordance with it . +I do realise that this is only a small step towards increased transport safety , but I would ask you to endorse this report . +Mr President , colleagues , a happy new year and millennium to you all . +I am speaking for the first time in this plenary part @-@ session , so this is quite exciting for me , a little like first love , although that did last longer than two minutes . +I would like to briefly comment on the Commission ' s proposal to amend the directive on the transport of dangerous goods by road . +it is good that this directive should be established now , as , otherwise , Member States would have to amend their national acts for a very short time , a period of transition , which would again mean unnecessary costs and which would once more increase concern with regard to EU bureaucracy . +the Commission ' s proposal , however , does not take account of all the facts , such as the cold climate that prevails in the northern regions . +consequently , I have tabled some amendments to Mr Koch ' s intrinsically excellent report , which have been adopted by our committee . +my amendments concern the frost @-@ resistance ratings for tankers carrying these dangerous goods . +according to the Commission ' s proposal -20ºC would have been sufficient . +on the shores of the Mediterranean , it is hard to imagine that in Lapland temperatures can fall considerably lower than that . +there is support for the EU in Lapland also , so let us remember them . +I have thus proposed that the frost rating be lowered to -40ºC . +this would be necessary to keep safety standards at the level they were in northern regions previously . +I hope my proposal will be taken into consideration in tomorrow ' s vote . +Mr President , with your permission I should like to begin by expressing my admiration for the way in which you executed the quick changeover of the chairmanship just now during the debate . +I thought that it was quite superb . +on the subject at hand , I think that the people of Europe must be able to be confident that the goods - however dangerous they are - which are transported on Europe 's roads , railways , and so on are as safe as possible . +this directive is a contribution to this . +what we are doing today is essentially a nuisance . +the rapporteur , Mr Koch , to whom we express our thanks for the work which he has done on this , has already pointed out that basically everything could have been somewhat more advanced had it not been for the inactivity on the part of the CEN , which has been very dilatory in drawing up and adapting the directive . +that is why we can only hope - and we should resolve all of this this week - that , in 2001 , we will finally have Community regulations for the transport of dangerous goods by road so that we have a degree of legal certainty here and also so that our roads are a good deal safer . +Mr President , the report we are discussing here does not , in itself , entail any major changes . most of the proposed amendments are of a purely technical nature . +it is nonetheless worth emphasising that , each time we make this type of decision , it is good from a broad environmental perspective and it is beneficial because it creates better prior conditions for exploiting the possibilities of the internal market . +very large quantities of dangerous goods are transported around the EU , both on roads and railways and by sea . +this makes it necessary to have proper rules governing transport of this kind . in area after area , we are now obtaining common minimum regulations for the Member States . +this is extraordinarily positive , and there is cause to thank the rapporteur , Mr Koch , for the work he has put in on this issue . +this is also important where the prerequisites for the internal market are concerned . +if we are to get a common transport market genuinely up and running , it is important that we should not only have regulations but that these regulations should also , as far as possible , apply to every country . +I should like to conclude by commenting on a third matter which is also of significance , namely an amendment tabled by Member of Parliament , Mr Ari Vatanen . +in many ways , the prerequisites differ from one Member State to another . +by approving this amendment , we take account of the fact that it can be very cold in the northern parts of the European Union . +this makes it necessary to also take account of the ways in which materials and packaging are affected by cold of this kind . +it is good that , in establishing the present regulations , we can also be flexible . I hope that the Commission is able to accept the present amendment . +Mr President , I would like to thank not only Mr Koch , but also the Vice @-@ President of the Commission for the clear and unambiguous way in which they have declared their support for safety in the transport sector and acknowledged it as a priority . +the reason Mr Koch produced his sound report was because the work in the CEN and within the United Nations Economic Commission was proceeding none too expeditiously . +I would like to ask the Vice @-@ President if she is in a position to tell us today what the state of play is with regard to the efforts towards harmonisation being made by these two organisations , and whether the EU is in a position to hasten these harmonisation efforts , in accordance with principles that are as simple as possible . +for one thing is clear : even if we come to an excellent arrangement within the European Union , traffic does not stop at our borders , it goes beyond them . +hence there is certainly every reason to introduce more far @-@ reaching regional provisions . +if the Commissioner is unable to do so today then would she be prepared to inform the committee in writing of how matters stand and what stage negotiations between the CEN and the Economic Commission are at ? +Mr President , I would once again like to congratulate Mr Koch on his magnificent work on this other report , which in a way supplements the debate which we held in October on rail transport . +we all regret that the European Committee for Standardisation ( CEN ) has not been able , in the required time , to carry out the amendment of the provisions necessary for the required harmonisation within the European Union . +this debate and the amendment of the directive currently in force allow us to incorporate differentiating elements which demonstrate the diversity of this Europe of ours . +a moment ago , Mr Vatanen spoke to us of lower temperatures , not of 20 degrees below zero , but of 40 degrees below zero . +of course , we accept that amendment - it is absolutely right - and I believe that we should incorporate specific circumstances which demonstrate the climatic diversity of the European Union , which sometimes take the form of specifics and of concrete requirements for the establishment of standards and characterisations of a technical nature . +I would like to say , with regard to Mr Swoboda ' s comments on the activity of the CEN , that we are urging them to speed up their work as much as possible because it would be terrible if , despite the new deadline , we were to find ourselves after a year and a bit with the same difficulties because their work has not been concluded . +lastly , Mr President , the basic problems justifying this amendment of the directive have been pointed out . we have referred to the delay by the CEN , the amendment of certain provisions , the consistency between the text of the directive and the content of the annexes and the need to for it to be more specific . +the Commission accepts all of the contributions of the parliamentary committee and the rapporteur , Mr Koch , which are contained in the various amendments , specifically four . +we therefore accept the four amendments which have been proposed . +the debate is closed . +the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. +structural Funds - Cohesion Fund coordination +Mr President , it is particularly pleasing for me to make my first speech in the European Parliament on what is regarded as the most important issue within that part of the United Kingdom that I represent in this Parliament , namely Wales . +a major part of Wales , as you know , has been granted Objective 1 status under the Structural Funds programme . +it is quite clear that many people within Wales are looking to the European Structural Funds programme to alleviate some of the great difficulties that we undoubtedly face . +we have seen poverty growing in Wales ; and growing still further since 1997 . +we have seen the gap between rich and poor widen . +we are looking , therefore , within the Structural Funds programme not just to see industrial restructuring but also to see a wider improvement in the whole of the economic base within the Principality . +what is , however , deeply damaging for us is the belief that in some way the granting of Structural Funds assistance is something that has been , in a sense , a success of the government . +it is sadly only a recognition of the very great difficulties that Wales faces . +that is why I want to highlight some of the issues that I believe the Commission must have at the forefront . +we look to the Commission to deal with points in relation to additionality . +we are dissatisfied with the fact that those figures seem to have been in some way hidden within UK figures . +we look to the Commission also to ensure that there is matched funding for projects . +we look to it to challenge the UK Government , to ensure that the private sector , which surely must be providing the major impetus for Structural Funds expenditure , is involved in the planning stage . +finally , we ask that the Commission ensures that Structural Fund monies are spent in a way which is transparent . +too much of what takes place within this Parliament is not transparent . +this is one area in which I believe the Commission can be a very great friend to Wales . +Mr President , our committee views these issues very differently and , to start , I will speak from the point of view of research . +we see it as a very positive sign that , in her own conclusions , the rapporteur has taken account of our committee ' s proposal that the Cohesion Fund countries should broaden the research infrastructure by locating universities and colleges in such a way that they would serve those who live in undeveloped regions better than now and make it easier for educated people to remain in their home districts . +this will be possible with action on the part of governments , and such decentralisation of higher education will be an unquestionably useful policy in evening out development . +another matter we would like to address , specifically from the point of view of industrial policy , is that we would have liked the Commission to pay more attention to the effects of services , electronic commerce and the growing use of the Internet , when they were planning the coordination of Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds . +poverty and wealth used to depend more on means of livelihood . +the rich areas were those where there were jobs in industry , but today those areas might have become a burden , and they may well be poor , meaning we also have to invest in new sectors of industry such as electronic production , as I might call it , and the production of services , because they are the industries of the future . +in my opinion the committee drafting the report has not taken sufficient account of this , so on behalf of the Committee on Industry , External Trade , Research and Energy , I would draw the Commission ' s attention to this issue . +finally , as the committee representing energy , we would have liked the issue of support for renewable energy resources from Cohesion and Regional Development funds to have been emphasised still more , thus , through a process of coordination , increasing the use of renewables so that the scant funding resources in the energy programme might have been compensated by means of these more substantial sums . +Mr President , I would very much like to thank Mrs Schroedter for the work she has done on this and to explain to colleagues that I am speaking for my colleague , Mrs Flautre , who followed this for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs but who is unfortunately ill . +I would like to draw people 's attention to Amendments Nos 1 and 2 which were agreed by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs but not accepted by the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism . +these amendments deal with the social economy and the need to provide social risk capital and support financially local schemes to develop employment opportunities and strengthen social cohesion . +in the past , this Parliament has viewed the social economy as an important potential provider of employment . +these amendments also fit in with this Parliament 's view that social exclusion is a serious issue needing constructive action . +we hope that those considering rejection of these amendments have very powerful reasons to offer to both Parliament and their citizens who are seeking employment . +in her report , Mrs Flautre also drew attention to an area where coordination is sorely lacking , yet desperately needed . +the Commission proposals refer to the four pillars of employment strategy and the five fields of action of the European Social Fund . +but the lack of specific guidelines here is particularly to be regretted , as the idea of linking Social Fund assistance to the employment strategy will be put into effect for the first time during the 2000 @-@ 2006 programme . +it could be said that the omission gives the impression that the Commission too has no idea how to provide maximum coordination between European Social Fund assistance , which is subject to review after three and a half years , and the Member States ' annual national plans for employment . +we hope that the Commission can reassure us that this was an oversight which is now being dealt with constructively . +Mr President , Commissioner , the proposal presented by the Commission , in accordance with its mandate , is a reasonable starting point for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development . +I would like to point out , however , that this starting point indicates to us the challenges which face us : maintaining a population in rural areas , given the changes taking place in all types of economic activity owing to agriculture ' s increasing lack of importance amongst the various sources of income for rural society . +this , as well as the deficiencies in the networks of infrastructures and services and a generally very low level of employment , which furthermore is seasonal and lacks diversity , exacerbates the exodus from rural areas . +the consequences do not inspire hope . +it is the young people who are disappearing , who are getting an education and finding work outside of the rural areas , all of which has an unfavourable effect on those areas . +this lack of infrastructure is also an obstacle to the establishment of companies and the creation of jobs . +we have to remember that rural areas represent almost four fifths of the territory of the European Union . +agriculture only provides 5.5 % of employment in the Union . +furthermore , three quarters of our farm workers are part @-@ time and require supplements to their incomes . +therefore , we support the establishment of an agricultural and rural development policy which is consistent with the objectives we have set . we want rural areas , at the dawn of the 21st century , to be competitive and multi @-@ functional , both with regard to agriculture and with regard to opening up to the diversity of non @-@ agricultural activities . +it is important to prioritise general criteria for land planning and demographic equilibrium , and to bear in mind the conclusions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the five fundamental issues , which have been only partly taken up by the Committee on Transport , Regional Policy and Tourism in its points 16 and 17 . +in conclusion , I would ask the Commission to take these five points into account when establishing the conclusions on the four pillars because I believe that , for the European Union , maintaining the population in rural areas must be one of the priority objectives . +Mr President , Commissioner , I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Schroedter , the rapporteur , for her work . +I think that this work has been carried out extremely well . +I would also like to thank her for her willingness to enter into dialogue with the other political groups when compromise formulas have needed to be reached in the face of this avalanche of amendments - and perhaps there are more of them than we expected - but which genuinely reflect the importance of the report we are now discussing . +we feel that it is important that the Commission takes account of the conclusions adopted by this Parliament , at least in spirit , because at this stage , it might seem as though what we are doing here is a useless exercise , and nothing but hot air . +the truth of the matter though is that we believe - and this is also shown in the way the conclusions have been drafted - that the Commission must take account of what is adopted by this Parliament , particularly in the face of an interim revision of these directives . +in our amendments , we have stated the importance of the necessary synergies being produced between the Structural Funds , the Cohesion Fund and Community initiatives , so that their application should be reflected , in the best and most profitable way , by the gradual elimination of disparities between regions and by the creation of jobs which are , when all is said and done , the two central purposes of the funds we are discussing . +in order to achieve a more rapid and efficient boost for attaining these objectives , we think that those who generate employment , the real entrepreneurs and those who really guarantee new sources of employment , that is , businesspeople , must participate in this initiative . +small and medium @-@ sized businesses , above all , need to take part in the distribution of these funds . +if they do not , if businesspeople feel marginalised , if entrepreneurs cannot take part , not only in managing but also in receiving these funds , we will have missed an opportunity to attain our objectives more rapidly . +also , in order to attain our objectives , to overcome the disparities between regions and to seek out sources of employment , it is crucial to give our complete support to new technologies , to transport and communications networks and to renewable energies . +all of this must be done - I repeat - with the participation of private business , which , by uniting its efforts with those of public administrations , but complementing them , never obstructing or excluding them , will lead to the creation of wealth in society and of jobs . +Mr President , it is incumbent upon me to remind my colleague , Mr Evans , of why Wales actually achieved Objective 1 status . +it was because of the discredited policies of his own Conservative Party . +let me also remind him that when his party leader , Mr Hague , was Secretary of State for Wales , he broke every rule in the book on additionality which led to a stern letter from Commissioner Wulf @-@ Mathies regarding regulatory requirements . +I can tell you that the British Government is aware of its regulatory requirements on Objective 1 additionality . +I suggest Mr Evans goes back and reads the regulation . +my Group has made extensive amendments to both reports up for debate today . +I want to focus our minds on the essential role of the guidelines . +the objective is to provide a framework and tool to support and enhance economic regeneration , to get the most effective use of resources in the widest partnership and to put these regions back on the road to recovery and sustainable development so that eventually they come off the regional life @-@ support machine . +it is important to identify the skills and potential of our regions in the hi @-@ tech sector . +it is particularly important in the light of reports in the media that Europe is rapidly losing ground to the US in the hi @-@ tech growth industries of the future . +the operation of the previous round of programmes is also very instructive in telling us what guidelines should not be about . +they should not be about creating additional layers of bureaucracy and red tape . +they should not be about shifting priorities and policies halfway through project development , resulting in inevitable delays and underspends , particularly in the light of the new budgetary requirement . +the implementation and operation of the guidelines cannot be left to the personal interpretation of one or other desk officer , either in the Commission or in the civil service . +there must be an internal coherence in the Commission directorate , while respecting the specific local and regional aspects of Commission programmes . +the conclusion is that we must make the case for guidelines to be broad , indicative and flexible to assist our programme managers and fund @-@ users and to get the maximum potential out of our new fields of regeneration . +if we can inject a spirit of entrepreneurial activity into our poor and structurally weak regions we will eventually get them back onto the road of attracting substantial investor confidence , which will be the key to future success . +this is how we are going to judge the success of these guidelines : whether EU regional policy with a good , solid , enabling guideline , can open up new opportunities and allow our poor and structurally weak regions to play their full part in contributing to the growth and prosperity of the EU . +Mr President , Commissioner , I would like to thank Mrs Schroedter for an excellent report . +she has gone into the issue in some depth and in the committee debate she took account of many of the amendments that have been tabled regarding this report . +the rapporteur has also quite rightly stated that Parliament was not heard in time regarding the guidelines . +we are badly behind now in this matter . +hopefully , the stands Parliament has taken will help , however , in the mid @-@ term appraisal of the programmes and in their practical implementation . +for the time , the report grew too large when it was being debated . it contained details and issues that had already been raised in previous reports . +at this stage it is more important to concentrate on assessing how we can use this process to steer Union regional policy , bearing in mind that the aim is to reduce regional inequality . +our Group emphasises the importance of the principle of subsidiarity , the responsibility of Member States and the role of local players in drafting and implementing programmes . it is especially important to get SMEs involved in the planning and implementation of programmes . +our Group also considers it important to take greater account of remote and peripheral areas and wishes to increase interaction between towns and rural areas . +we oppose the excessive control the central administration of the Union and its Member States exercises and we are calling for a reduction in the bureaucracy that has taken root in the drafting and implementation of programmes . +projects implemented with support from the Union have had their effect watered down all too often by slow decision making and complicated administrative processes . +funds have often been granted for projects which have had no lasting benefit for the area concerned . projects have to be carried out more efficiently , more flexibly and they have to be made more productive . +while the report was being prepared , it was interesting to discuss the Union ' s regional policy in general . +for us new members , it was the first time , and this was a very interesting process . +this report is very good and our Group supports it . +Mr President , Commissioner , as proof that this Parliament has not yet overcome its role as a consultative and subordinate institution , the excellent report by a fellow member of my Group , Elisabeth Schroedter , has not been able to reach plenary sitting because the plans for regional development for the period 2000 @-@ 2006 for Objective 1 regions have been sitting in the Commission ' s offices for several months . +Mr President , we should not forget that the main , strategic objective of the Structural and Cohesion Funds and of their coordination is to achieve economic and social cohesion . +we are obliged to participate in drafting directives and also in assessing their results . +we are obliged to do so because we are the representatives of the citizens in a Europe of Citizens and not just in a Europe of States and of Regions . +we feel that the Funds are a necessary but insufficient condition for achieving economic and social cohesion . +we might be mistaken in using the gross domestic product per inhabitant as the sole indicator . +some speakers have already mentioned unemployment and the fall in population . +we will have to study several indicators , which will enable us to see the current state of regional societies that are in a worse situation than others , and how they are evolving . +it is clear from some of the reports that have been presented to Parliament ' s plenary sitting today that Europe ' s 25 most prosperous regions enjoy a level of unemployment which is five times lower than in the 25 least prosperous regions . +this fact means that the European Parliament , the Commissioner and the Commission must act decisively and strategically . +I agree that the European Parliament did not have the opportunity - or that it was not given the opportunity , as we had reached the end of the parliamentary term - to discuss the directives . +I do not think , however , that this report has come too late . +we need to consider it together , so that the new Objective 1 programmes and the plans for regional development , which have been drafted before the directives come into force , can be submitted for revision and proper assessment . +we all agree that we should ask that , halfway through these programmes , when the assessment of the directives is made , Parliament should be given an equally influential role on the grounds that we are the citizens ' representatives . +our citizens cannot accept that the European Union takes decisions in a way that is , at least on the face of it , bureaucratic . +they need to see the political dimension working , to see that officials accept their responsibilities and that there is communication with the citizens . +this is what we are today asking the Commissioner for . +I would like to think that , given his previous experience as a regional President , he will agree to propose indicators , and a strategy , which will favour economic and social cohesion and not just productivity . +Mr President , I support the main proposals of the report concerning the administration of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the period 2000 @-@ 2006 and the main recommendations of the report which include the following : there must always be an integrated approach to the spending of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds . +this means that there must be a comprehensive partnership between local authorities and national governments with regard to how these funds are to be spent . +Member States are urged to attach greater importance to integrated strategies for revitalising relations between towns and rural areas . this latter point is of particular importance . +while urban renewal in our cities is very important we must always strike a balance in our policies between promoting rural development and improving the lives of city dwellers . +we do not want to build a Europe of cities alone . +the Structural Funds have played a key role in the development both of urban and rural parts of peripheral countries , mainly through the upgrading of roads , water treatment and related transport networks . +this process will continue in accordance with the financial spending guidelines laid down by the EU leaders at their Berlin Summit last year , which were supported by Parliament at its last May plenary part @-@ session . +key EU programmes between 1989 , 1993 , 1994 and 1999 have certainly helped to improve the economic competitiveness of peripheral countries and Objective 1 regions within Europe . +the key now is to consolidate and make permanent the progress made to date . +this would ensure that the peripheral countries and the ultraperipheral regions , the poorer regions in Europe , are in a position to operate successfully within the new euro currency zone , as well as within an ever @-@ expanding internal market where the free movement of goods , persons , services and capital exist . +in conclusion , while key infrastructure projects have been supported by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund , we should remember that the European Social Fund has played a very important role in helping the less well @-@ off in our society . +the Social Fund has certainly improved our third @-@ level institutions , financed our post @-@ leaving certificate programmes and put in place comprehensive schemes to help combat youth and long @-@ term unemployment , assist early school leavers and promote higher standards of adult literacy . +Mr President , on numerous occasions in the past I have disagreed with the rapporteur on her approach to regional policy issues . this time , however , I actually agree with her . +whether or not this will encourage her to continue along the same path , I cannot say . nevertheless , I would like to commend her on her work . +the second point I would like to make is that we would have preferred it if the guidelines had been added to the regulation in the form of an annex , as we and Mrs McCarthy , as rapporteurs for the general regulation , had asked . +unfortunately , this did not happen . Mr Bernié is not to blame for this as it was a matter for the previous committee . +I am raising the issue just to reiterate Parliament ' s position . +thirdly , we broadly agree on the general guidelines provided they do not deviate from the comments we have made so far . +they are particularly beneficial to the Member States , and I would particularly like to draw your attention to the emphasis the Commission has placed on the issues of sustainable development , job creation and , more particularly , on equal opportunities and transport issues . +personally , I at least am totally in favour of the guidelines . +as an islander , however , I would like to express my dissatisfaction at the lack of recognition of island development . +this is not the first time that this issue has not been given the consideration it deserves . this has been an ongoing concern for the five years that I have been a Member of this Parliament , and I have raised the issue time and time again . +Commissioner , we shall continue to raise the issue , as Article 158 , paragraph 1 , of the Treaty of Amsterdam provides for an integrated policy for islands . +therefore , the Commission should address the issue once and for all . +the time has come to implement the programmes , and so Member States should also assume their responsibilities and do their jobs properly . +as for us in Parliament , I would like to remind you of the code of conduct between the Commission and Parliament which was signed in May . +I am absolutely certain that this code will be observed and that Parliament will keep abreast of all the developments and details concerning the implementation of the programmes . +Mr President , Commissioner , in this minute and a half I should like , first of all , to congratulate Mrs Schroedter . +I know many have already done so , but she has indeed earned our praise for being particularly open and attentive to proposals from all sides , and I think it is this openness which has given her report the quality we see today . +I share the regrets she expressed , namely that Parliament has become involved rather late in the day as regards these guidelines , since by now the procedure for negotiations with the states is so far advanced that I cannot see this report having any sort of immediate effect , which in my view is a pity . +consequently , I feel we must look to the future and establish guidelines for the mid @-@ term review in 2003 , and thus have an influence on the second phase of programming set to follow 2003 . +in brief , I would like to say that we are entering the period when we are called upon to manage the programming for 2000 @-@ 2006 , which must be no routine period for the good reason that we have two major challenges to face . +the first is the harmonisation of national development policies and regional development policies . +subsidies are not enough to ensure development when infrastructure and public services are lacking . +we must ask ourselves a fundamental question : how can we ensure that Union policy interfaces with the subsidiary national policies for regional development ? +the second challenge is that of enlargement which will , of course , have a considerable impact , both in budgetary and geographical terms . +these are two areas of action which I invite the Commissioner to set up and in which I would ask him to involve us . +finally , in this time of natural disasters , I would just like to mention the issue of the use of Structural Funds . +as you know , it is up to each State to redistribute part of the total appropriation . +Europe should not be completely absent , as the states tend to want . +public opinion and the press nowadays accuse us of being unavailable to give a response , even though we are going to be funding a large proportion of the national operations . +I think we should be capable of saying this loud and clear . +I also think we should ensure , or ask Member States to ensure , that there is some publicity given to European aid whenever it is used to repair damage caused by natural disasters or accidents . +Mr President , the priority given to financial and monetary criteria reinforces the increase in inequalities of every shape and form . +as far as French planning experts are concerned , for example , the most probable scenario today is that of the entrenchment of regional disparities within each country . +well , the Structural Funds have helped to apply a brake to this process . +our project of a Europe that aims to satisfy social needs envisages the convergence of living conditions towards the highest common denominator . +its implementation would certainly require extending the scope of redistribution instruments such as the Structural Funds . +what we are proposing specifically is a unified capital tax , which would make it possible to boost the funds used to support the harmonisation of social protection systems and the reduction of working hours at European level . +the Commission , however , though bound to issue guidelines , does so only reluctantly and in a vague manner . +the report put forward today re @-@ establishes its place in the political sphere . +it is one of the steps towards a policy of employment and sustainable development . +this is what persuades us to vote in favour of it . +Mr President , I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work . +over the coming years , faced with the challenges of globalisation and eastward enlargement , Europe will , more than ever before , require appropriate detailed guidance on how to plan and revitalise its economy . +to this end , Europe as a whole , and each Member State individually , will have to make optimum use of all available resources and capacities , including the Structural Funds . +for this to be possible , what we need from the European Commission are not just good intentions , but clearer guidelines and a firm commitment to monitoring the way these resources are used by the Member States . +for example , in recent years Italy has had problems in utilising the Structural Funds , mainly because of excessive bureaucracy , insufficient information and a lack of involvement of economic and social operators at local level . +I will conclude , Mr President , by saying that the failure of the Commission ' s communication to focus on territorial pacts and , especially , methods of combating unemployment among women and young people , is cause for serious concern . +Mr President , like my colleague Mr Evans , it is a particular pleasure to rise and make my first speech to this House on this very important issue , especially since I represent a part of the United Kingdom , the West Midlands , which has hitherto benefited from Objective 2 funding in particular . +but the report before the House tonight is a prime example of how , if we are not very careful , we can produce very grandiose @-@ sounding ideas that lack the substance to make them relevant to the people who benefit directly from them . +the report itself is well @-@ intentioned but , as so often when we deal with these issues , lacks clarity of purpose and a sound basis for operability . +that is why I and my Group are proposing three key amendments and additions to the text , not to take anything away from the proposal , but to make it more relevant to those whom it is there to guide . +I would like to explain our thinking here . +firstly , we are concerned with the proper use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds . +past experience dictates that , as the elected representatives of the European taxpayer , we should , and indeed must , demand financial probity and transparency in the disbursement and auditing of this money , hence our amendments and additions relate to achieving what are known as " value for money " indicators in the grant @-@ giving process . +next , we all too often see vast sums of money being spent on projects whose outcomes will necessarily be unclear at the start of the programme period . +but at the mid @-@ way point or end of that period there is no effective way of terminating the project if it has not proved successful . +our additions therefore call for the provision of practical enforceable exit strategies so that not only can we have the requisite insurance against ongoing costs which are often loaded onto the taxpayer , but we also avoid the well @-@ rehearsed syndrome of throwing good money after bad . +finally , we call for a change to the balance and method by which the funds are disbursed . +there should be greater involvement of the private sector which will introduce financial reality as a perspective within the funding equation . +also the type of project funded needs to be shifted away from small @-@ scale revenue @-@ based projects , which are hard to monitor , towards capital schemes where , in the majority of cases , the benefits are there for all to see . +that way the much @-@ trumpeted need for transparency in the use of these funds and the temptation to draw unnecessarily in the longer term on the local tax base in areas where such projects are located will be diminished and the European Parliament will show how seriously it takes the need for such reform . +I urge the House to support these changes . +Mr President , Commissioner , I too would like to commend the rapporteur on her report , which is a meticulous and substantive piece of work . +the European Union ' s structural and cohesion policies are , without doubt , essential tools for creating the right conditions with a view to tackling and reducing the levels of economic and social disparity between the regions . +despite the steps taken thus far , these levels are still very high , and are unacceptably high as regards unemployment . +these policy objectives can only be achieved through their careful coordination and organisation on the basis of well thought @-@ out and sensible guidelines . +let us not forget that when these policies are effective , they also benefit European citizens by directly improving their quality of life . +let us not forget either that greater consideration should be given to the islands and remote regions of the European Union because their geographical location is a hindrance to their economic and social development , unless of course the Commission is intending to build bridges or underwater tunnels linking them to the European mainland . +in closing , I would like to point out that the structural policies as a whole require greater flexibility so that they can adapt to changing circumstances and thereby respond to the new challenges and opportunities of the new millennium , for which we all hope for the best . +Mr President , Mrs Schroedter ' s report undoubtedly contains several important observations , and I would like to congratulate her on that . +however , I feel that we should be a little more concerned about the actual direction and outcome of the Community ' s regional policy . +quite briefly , structural policy does not ease the problem of mass unemployment in any way , rather it aggravates it . +the agricultural economy and agricultural regions have been irreparably damaged by the existing regional policy , which has had dramatic consequences on employment levels in rural areas and on the living conditions of farmers , particularly in the South . +regional disparities are becoming much more marked within the Member States . +if we examine the data presented in the sixth periodic report , we will see that the last decade has witnessed a proliferation of regional disparities . +little consideration , if any at all , has been given to the great problems facing the island regions of the Union whose shortcomings as regards infrastrucutres structure , transport , communication and energy has resulted in their gradual depopulation . +the Union ' s economic and social policy is just as much to blame for that as its regional policy . +a large section of the Union ' s population has strongly condemned this policy for being dangerous and anti grass @-@ roots . +unfortunately , the new guidelines seem to be heading in the same direction and there are no signs that things will change once they have been implemented . +Mr President , I would like to say a few words in order to highlight two points made in these reports which are of fundamental strategic importance to the way we see the Union . +the first is the fundamental , central importance that we continue to give to the principle of economic and social cohesion . +we are concerned to hear news that the Commission is taking this objective less seriously . +we still feel that economic and social cohesion is one of the Union ' s fundamental objectives . +secondly , I agree with what has already been said on the issue of the islands and I would also like to bring the outermost regions to your attention . +in future , we would like to see greater ambition applied to the subject of the outermost regions such as , in my country , the islands of the Azores and Madeira . +I would like to ask if the Commission is able to enlighten us on the reasons for the delay in the Commission ' s report on the outermost regions , which has been long awaited by Parliament ? +Mr President , first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur , not least for being willing to include in the report the suggestions we made . +Mr President , Commissioner , the guidelines are intended to help steer the Member States towards achieving the reform objectives contained in the programmes . +however , contrary to their claim to provide guidance , the Commission ' s proposals in this respect are reminiscent to a far greater extent of a catalogue of possible measures within the scope of the various policy areas . +nonetheless , their true purpose is to give direction and to set priorities . +I am particularly in favour of a proposed amendment tabled by my Group to paragraph 10 , to ensure an appropriate level of private sector involvement in the planning and implementation of the projects . +I should be very grateful , Mrs Schroedter , if you would actually include this proposed amendment in the part relating to subsidiarity in your positive deliberations . +Mr President , Commissioner , in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs , we upheld unanimously the criterion that it was of strategic importance and a matter of priority to support the interventions of the Structural and Cohesion Funds which are working for a better opportunity for jobs for the unemployed and for equality between men and women . +unfortunately , the excellent Schroedter report did not take account of this criterion , despite the fact that there is considerable evidence to show - as we shall see later in the Berend report - how , in fact , these funds are providing splendid assistance to the most backward regions in order to bridge the gulf that separates them from Europe ' s most highly @-@ developed regions . +they are growing , but only in terms of GDP . +they are increasing in competitiveness but they are not all experiencing an increase in wealth because there is no increase in employment and there are still differences in employment opportunities between regions . +Commissioner , please read the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and treat it as a matter of priority , because this is our citizens ' greatest problem . +please take account , in strategic terms , in the revision and in the allocation of reserves , of employment needs , because this , fundamentally is what the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds require . +Mr President , it is important that the guidelines head in the right direction and that they guarantee the effectiveness of the programmes of the crucial seven @-@ year period 2000 @-@ 2006 so as to ensure sustainable development and job creation , particularly for women and young people , and ensure a balance is struck between economic and social policy and regional policy . +it is particularly important to address those serious issues concerning urban areas , employment in rural areas , aid to agricultural regions and equal development opportunities for the islands of the European Union and for the Greek islands which , of course , comprise half of the islands of the Union , as stipulated in Article 158 of the Treaty . +cohesion policy needs to be strengthened further because a Europe which totally disregards the standard of living in its regions can neither be reliable or viable . +Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I would like to express my great interest in listening carefully to the comments , occasional criticisms and suggestions that some of you have just made in your speeches with reference to Mrs Schroedter ' s report . +so , ladies and gentlemen , I should like in a moment to return to the role and structure of the guidelines before mentioning the principal comments and criticisms that you , Mrs Schroedter , and the various Members of this House , have made . +regarding the role and structure of these guidelines , Mr Hatzidakis , Mrs Schroedter and Mrs McCarthy mentioned that the purpose of these guidelines is to assist national and regional authorities in preparing their programming strategy for each of Structural Fund Objectives 1 , 2 and 3 as well as their links with the Cohesion Funds . +this means putting forward the Commission ' s priorities , based on past experience in implementing the programmes , as well as current Community policies relating to structural operations . +the objective is that these priorities should contribute to the better use , to the optimum and efficient use , as some of you have wished , of Community involvement , including , Mr Bradbourn , using , if necessary , the performance reserve which is specifically intended to encourage the optimum and efficient use of European public monies . +when I speak of optimum utilisation , I am referring both to the national and regional levels . and so , Mr Seppänen , I shall also mention at this point , speaking of the national level , the link with the Cohesion Fund . +this is the purpose of these guidelines . +regarding their content , as you know , ladies and gentlemen of this House , they are focused on three strategic priorities that your rapporteur pointed out very clearly but , at the same time , very passionately , as I understood her presentation just now . +the first priority is to improve the competitiveness of regional economies in order to create , in all sectors , but especially in the private sector , as Mr Berend said , the maximum number of serious , worthwhile and permanent jobs , the competitiveness of regional economies , all regional economies , and in particular , Mr Evans , that of Wales , but not only of Wales . +and , because there are a number of you who have just pointed out what appeared to you to be an omission , let me also add the regional economies of the European regions handicapped by their distance from the centre , be they remote regions , island regions or , of course , the most remote regions which are , naturally , the most distant . +perhaps I may inform Mr Ribeiro e Castro , who asked me about this , that , as I wrote to the presidents of each of these most remote regions , the Commission did indeed request an extension of several weeks before publishing its anticipated report . +concerning the most remote regions , it was only quite belatedly that we received the memorandums from the various governments , but this is not necessarily an excuse , just an explanation . +we must therefore take these memorandums into consideration and produce an extremely thorough piece of work . +I myself took part in a meeting of the most remote regions on 23 November and , within the College , we considered that we would need several more weeks before being able to produce a report that dealt appropriately with the extremely serious problems and lived up to the expectations of these most remote regions . I would thank you for your understanding in this matter . +so that is the first priority , the competitiveness of regional economies . +the second priority , which several of you have stressed , Mr Puerta in particular , but there were others , not that I am mentioning them in any order of priority , is the strengthening of social cohesion and of employment , particularly by raising the profile of human resources far more so than in the past . +in fact , the guidelines take two horizontal principles into account . the first is rural development , and let me say , Mrs Schroedter , that I am including in rural development the matter of sustainable transport , an issue I have been involved in personally for a long time . +I particularly remember the time when I was Minister for the Environment in my own country . the second principle is that of equal opportunities , particularly for men and women , as well as the European strategy for employment and the context of economic and monetary Union . +finally , and in order to respond to the concerns which you have expressed in this House , particularly yourself , Mrs Schroedter , in these guidelines we recall the importance and the definition of integrated strategies , for development or redevelopment , which , of all the priorities , offer the maximum opportunity to synergy , to the measures undertaken and to the establishment of a decentralised partnership . +you expressed some concern about what might look like a lack of reference to this partnership , yet there is a clear reference to it on page 5 of the guidelines . +these are the reasons why the guidelines are presented according to thematic priorities , since they must be taken into consideration , under each of the objectives , to different extents in accordance with the specific situations of each of the Member States and regions . +I should now like to respond briefly to a few of the comments you have made , ladies and gentlemen , and firstly on procedure . +it is true that consultation with Parliament has only come about at a late date . +let me remind you that when the guidelines were adopted by the Commission , in the form of a draft in February 1999 , in line with a new procedure intended to make it easier to present comments on this text , my predecessor , Mrs Wulf @-@ Mathies , presented them to Parliament immediately . +due to the elections to the European Parliament taking place around this time , however , Parliament was not able to undertake its examination of these guidelines until after the text had been definitively adopted , in July 1999 . +here in this Chamber , ladies and gentlemen , among you , I wish to assure you that in the negotiations for the programmes which are only just beginning - Mr Hatzidakis asked me a question about this - as far as Member States are concerned , your observations will certainly be taken into consideration . +and let me assure you , furthermore , that when the Commission adopts the guidelines with what we call the mid @-@ term review in mind , in line with the regulations , then the point of view of this House , as expressed in this report , will also be taken into account . +now to the form . +on the subject of the role of the guidelines , Mrs Schroedter , you pointed out that this is the context in which guidelines on a number of European objectives , often very precise ones , should be provided . +I shall not list them all , but they include implementing intersectoral policies , increasing efficiency in the use of public funds , assisting the various partners in drawing up regional or national programming together , etc . the Commission takes note of these , but several of these guidelines or these questions are related more to other documents , such as the Guide to the Reform of the Structural Funds or the methodological working document . +drawing to a close , I should like to focus on a number of challenges which you reiterated , Mrs Schroedter . +I am thinking , for example , of the idea that these guidelines are not specific enough in their recommendations . +this claim that your report makes must be seen in the context of last spring ' s negotiations . +the Commission kept to the actual text of Article 10 of the Structural Funds regulations , which stipulates that the aim of these guidelines is to provide Member States with broad , indicative guidelines on relevant and agreed Community policies . +I actually quoted the text itself , in quotation marks . +moreover , the guidelines may not substitute for the programming or the ex ante assessments which must be the tool used to specify priorities and the effectiveness of these programmes . +you then mentioned , Mrs Schroedter , the section of the guidelines relating to urban and rural development , pointing out that urban development was not sufficiently taken into consideration . +I find the opposite the case . +I wish to confirm the great importance the Commission attaches , and shall attach , to the urban dimension of our cohesion policy . +indeed , I had occasion recently to say as much to all the ministers responsible for urban policy at a meeting in Tampere . +as regards rural development , which a number of you brought up , particularly Mrs Redondo Jiménez , the guidelines are in line with the twofold objective mentioned by your rapporteur : a strong agricultural sector linked with increased competitiveness in rural areas , but also protection of the environment and Europe ' s rural heritage . +it must , however , be stressed that the guidelines under discussion are related only to the Structural Funds , whose Objectives 1 and 2 specifically adopt the diversification of rural society as a priority . +and indeed , on the subject of the balance of rural society , let us not forget that there is also the new rural development policy cofinanced by the EAGGF Guarantee Section , aimed at promoting reform in European agriculture and supporting the multifunctional aspect of agriculture . +at this stage , I would simply like to say that I would like to see it integrated into the programming for Objective 2 rural areas , in the way that the EAGGF Guidance Section is for Objective 1 regions . +in any event , I appreciate the vigilance of your Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in this matter . +I shall therefore reserve the right , if you permit , sir , to give you my own opinion , which , to a great extent , matches your own recommendation regarding what action we might take to combat the oil spillage using Objective 2 . +I shall remind you that the Commission is going to be approving the Objective 2 zoning plans for France , Sweden , Austria and Luxembourg tomorrow . +we shall then have an appropriate tool for working , particularly in the majority of the regions affected by the storms . +indeed , this is my reason for paying a personal visit the day after tomorrow to two of the French departments which have been severely disabled by the storms . +in conclusion , with thanks for your understanding , Mr President , I should like to thank you , Mrs Schroedter , for the quality of your work and that of the committee , and to tell you that I am very pleased , apart from a few differences in our assessments of the role of the guidelines . +we have discussed this and I have attempted to clarify my point of view . I am very pleased with the level of support offered by your House to the Commission in establishing these guidelines , which have been submitted to the Member States for information when establishing their own programmes . +this can only reinforce the concept based on a number of elements of good practice drawn from our experience of the current 1994 @-@ 1999 programmes . +I feel this augurs well for effective cooperation between our two institutions , at this time when programming for the period 2000 @-@ 2006 is being undertaken , good joint working practice , which is , Mr Hatzidakis , backed up by something I am very attentive to : observance of the code of conduct which links our two institutions . +the debate is closed . +the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. +social and economic situation and development of the regions of the Union +the next item is the debate on the report ( A5 @-@ 0107 / 1999 ) by Mr Berend , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union [ SEC ( 99 ) 0066 - C5 @-@ 0120 / 99 - 1999 / 2123 ( COS ) ] . +Mr President , Commissioner , this sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union constitutes a milestone in the analysis of regional data and highlights the progress made in this area since the issue of the fifth periodic report . +I consider , however , that the mention of any real convergence of average regional development levels in Europe offers a somewhat over @-@ simplified view of the situation and , unfortunately , this is often the message taken up in the press and in some speeches . +the Commission report generally relativises this observation , particularly when it refers to the social and economic situation of some regions of the Union in which I have a special interest , by which I mean the French overseas departments and , more generally , the most remote regions . +in this respect , I am pleased to see that the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism has adopted one of my amendments calling on the Commission to devote a specific chapter in its next report on cohesion to the special case of the most remote regions and , more specifically , to consideration of the impact of the measures shortly to be adopted under new Article 299 ( 2 ) of the Treaty of Amsterdam . +finally , in my view , this sixth periodic report presents interesting arguments from the viewpoint of a real project for the balanced sustainable development of Europe , particularly when it outlines the importance of relations between the central areas of Europe and its more remote regions . +even if the Commission is still reluctant to say so in too explicit a fashion , its periodic report demonstrates the urgent need to promote polycentric development of the Community area through the Union ' s structural policies and within the scope of the approach initiated by the SEC . +Mr President , the Group of the Party of European Socialists in this Parliament agrees with the report that Mr Berend has just presented and congratulates the author , both on the quality of his conclusions and on his flexibility , which ensured that the different groups were able to incorporate amendments in committee . +the European Commission ' s sixth report presents very valuable conclusions . +I shall summarise two of those highlighted by the rapporteur , one positive and one negative . +the first is that important advances have been made in regional and social cohesion throughout the Union and that the Community Funds have been a major , although not decisive , factor in reducing regional inequalities . +the negative conclusion is that the great effort made has been more efficient in harmonising the European regions ' GDP and productivity than in harmonising its levels of unemployment . +it is therefore necessary to link structural financing more closely to job creation . +this , Commissioner , is the first commandment for the coming period . +thus , Mr President , I ask my fellow Members to approve this report and I ask the Commission , as other speakers have done , to take good note of the conclusions of their sixth periodic report when they address the programming for the period 2000 @-@ 2006 . +Mr President , Commissioner , I would first like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and for having taken due account of the proposed amendments while the committee was debating it . +the sixth periodical report gives a basis for assessing the implementation of the Union ' s regional policy aims . the report shows that growth has been uneven , despite all our efforts . +very rapid growth is continuing in Central Europe . the strongest regional centres also continue to grow faster than the general European average , whereas many southern European and northern areas are developing considerably more slowly . +we now require an in @-@ depth analysis of why regional policy is not producing the desired result in all areas . +is the reason bureaucracy or is it because insufficient notice has been taken of interregional differences , long distances , climates that are too cold or too hot , sparse populations and austere conditions ? +how can the Union respond to the challenges of global development in a way that the less developed areas can remain a part of that development ? +it is also important to discover what the effects of Union enlargement will be on Structural Funds and the development of the Union ' s more remote areas . +the Member States must also bear in mind their responsibility . +some Member States have been in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and cut national regional funds when regional aid coming via the Union has been increased . +this has chipped away at the results that regional policy has produced . +in the future , we must also develop indicators so that measures can be targeted at the right time at the right place . +for example , uncontrolled migration has not been given sufficient consideration . +in this connection , too , weight has to be given to the decisive importance of SMEs as employers and forces behind regional development . +it is absolutely essential that companies in areas developing more slowly adopt the latest technology and know @-@ how . +our Group is in favour of adopting this report . +Mr President , Commissioner , the European Union ' s regional policy has , until now , not been able to interpret , in any significant way , the existing differences in our inhabitants ' incomes . +we have a serious situation in which in the European Union today , there is a genuine link between unemployment and poverty , as demonstrated by the very worrying fact that unemployment has reached , on average , 23.7 % in the regions worst affected , regions which also happen to be poor areas , whilst in the 25 regions with the lowest unemployment , corresponding to the richer areas , unemployment stands at just 4 % . +Mr President , Commissioner , Mr Berend ' s report is precisely in line with the strategy determined by the European Commission inasmuch as the question of increasing competitiveness is brought right to the fore . +the overarching objectives of the structural funds such as job creation , boosting equality of opportunity , increasing the sustainability of employment and development , are only mentioned in passing . +this attitude appears to me to be unjustified . I would also ask that a great deal more emphasis be placed on these points in the seventh periodic report . +this does not mean that I do not see the need for competitiveness , particularly as I myself am an entrepreneur in an Objective 1 Region , that is in Brandenburg in the Federal Republic of Germany , and am only too aware of the problems and concerns of small and medium @-@ sized enterprises . +it is absolutely crucial that parallel temporary measures be introduced in the Objective 1 Regions , that is to say job creation measures , special programmes for supporting employment opportunities for women and initiatives to help people set up their own business . +they are supported by appropriate European Union structural fund activities . +supporting only the competitiveness of companies will never be able to compensate for the envisaged cohesion between economic and social development , simply because there is no basis for a self @-@ supporting upturn in these Objective 1 Regions . +after all , the knowledge that economic development alone does not help to combat unemployment substantiates the fact than an increase of at least 3 % in gross domestic product is needed to create any additional jobs at all . +concentrating to the exclusion of all else on supply and demand @-@ orientated economic policy is not the answer . +and those that do pursue such a policy must invest in expansion for the most part and , to a lesser extent , in rationalisation . +it is imperative for this to go hand in hand with a demand @-@ orientated economic policy if we are to have any chance at all of improving the social situation in these areas . +the situation varies to an enormous degree throughout the regions . +in other words , what is needed is a number of accompanying measures if anything at all is to be accomplished there . +for example , these would be measures for vocational training , for further education , for re @-@ integrating people who have already been excluded from the production process , for the flexibilisation of working time and working time arrangements , in order to bring about a definite improvement in the integration of personal and social aspects and perhaps also to promote employment opportunities for women again . +Mr President , my compliments to the rapporteur for his in @-@ depth report . +the key goal of the structural funds is to strengthen social and economic cohesion between the regions within the European Union . +by stimulating a diversity of investments , the European Union is endeavouring to increase the GDP per capita and to boost employment . +from the sixth periodic report on the regions , one can draw the hesitant conclusion that these incentives do not always have the desired effect . +the efforts made in order to drive up the GDP per capita in Objective 1 regions do not always result in such an increase , not really a satisfying result over a period during which , certainly over the past couple of years , there has been economic growth . +as indicated by the rapporteur , the effects of the structural measures , on the other hand , are minimal as far as employment is concerned . +some reservation about the effectiveness of Community aid is therefore called for . +also , the observation that the disparities between regions within Member States sometimes even become more pronounced raises serious questions . +Mr President , it therefore seems worthwhile and necessary to focus attention on both national and regional authorities , especially in connection with boosting employment . +it is , after all , they who have most knowledge about the regions which fall under their remit . +by allowing them to develop tailor @-@ made plans for the relevant regions and , if necessary , tying this in with financial aid , a higher return can be achieved . +surely this must be the ultimate goal . +I am therefore in favour of the Commission delegating the practical details and implementation of measures to the Member States and regions . +following on from this , it is probably also more meaningful , with regard to the financial aid to regions , to give Member States more say anyway . +by shifting the criteria from the regions to the Member States , we can avoid a great deal of problems later on . +finally , I would like to draw attention to the position of the Central and Eastern European countries . +the report shows that , in general , they are a long way behind EU countries , especially in terms of GDP per capita . +with the planned accession of a large number of these countries in the foreseeable future , it is a matter of urgency to review the current structural policy . +I would like to take this opportunity to follow the example of others and call on the Commission to submit proposals for reform sooner rather than later . +Mr President , Commissioner , following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part . +for example , whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased , there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect . +equally , unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all , indeed they rose in some cases . +I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently . +even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries . +since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment , then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development , improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training . +genuine structural reforms and a competition @-@ friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base . +if we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost @-@ intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term , then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed . +we will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate . +Mr President , Commissioner , my thanks go to the rapporteur for handling this very important report , because developments in the social and economic situation will decide to what extent the citizens of Europe will judge that we have been successful in our work . +this issue , which has an impact on their everyday life , is a key issue as regards EU credibility . +it has to be conceded that the EU has already aided , I would say quite magnificently , the development of poor countries . +I remember what Portugal and Greece used to be like when I drove through those countries for the first time twenty @-@ five years ago . +in this connection , French speakers would speak of a " coup de chapeau " : in other words , I take my hat off to the EU . +the EU really deserves such a gesture , but differences between rich and poor areas within countries are still too great . +what is the result ? +people react by voting with their feet and go where they can earn a crust . +consequently , we have to build schools , hospitals , and the whole infrastructure for the same people in the same country many times over . +this is very costly and it also causes very great social problems . +most people , however , would like to live in the area in which they were born and raised , if they were given the chance to , in other words , if there was work there . +we must give them this opportunity . +this is a moral obligation the EU and all of us have . +the solution , as I see it , lies in clearly encouraging entrepreneurship . +by entrepreneurship I do not simply mean the ownership of business , but creating will . +I mean the attitude where a person wants to get on in life , whether he or she is an employee , the owner of a business or an official . +what is a fair society ? +one in which someone from a modest background can get on in life so as to make life a little easier for his or her children . +in this way , positive development of the regions is also possible , because people will start business and will work if they are given the chance . +finally , I would say that in this matter we should learn a lesson from America , where hard work is still in fashion and success is an indication of ability and not the object of envy , as it often is here in Europe . +Mr President , Commissioner , as my time is limited , I shall get straight to the point . +firstly , let me make a statement of fact : the fruits of growth are not distributed equitably within the Union . +the most remote regions , still hard hit by catastrophic unemployment rates , offer one example of this . +in Reunion , for example , the rate is 37 % . +this is not a situation related to the economic climate , however ; rather it is a structural problem , created by our remoteness , our insularity , in short , our own specific personality . +the principle of specific , exceptional treatment was envisaged in Article 299 ( 2 ) of the Treaty of Amsterdam in order to deal with such cases . +it only remains to put this principle into practice . +the Commission document expected to be ready in December 1999 was delayed until January , then February , and the initial thinking does not fill me with much optimism . +I therefore appeal formally to the Council and the Commission . +as regards taxation , state aid , the Structural Funds and defending our traditional products , practical measures characterised by daring and ambition must be planned as a matter of urgency . +if these do not materialise , then , unfortunately , convergence and cohesion will remain no more than words for us , and it is to be feared that the structural policy undertaken in our regions , despite the size of the amounts committed , will end in failure . +thank you very much , Commissioner . +the debate is closed . +the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m. +( the sitting was closed at 8.25 p.m. ) +adoption of the Minutes of the previous sitting +the Minutes of yesterday ' s sitting have been distributed . +are there any comments ? +Mr President , I respond to an invitation yesterday afternoon by the President of the House to speak on behalf of my group on a matter referred to in the Minutes . +I refer to item 11 on the order of business . +firstly , I believe the issue raised by the President of the Socialist Group yesterday about the reinstatement of the debate with the President of the Commission on the five @-@ year strategic programme was sufficiently important for other speakers who wished to comment briefly on that matter to have been accommodated . +I wish to express that view even if I respectfully disagreed and voted against the proposal of the President of the Socialist Group . +the second point I would like to make - and which I would have wished to make yesterday before the vote - is that this Parliament , as other speakers remarked yesterday , can only really have an effect if it works in close cooperation and synergy with the European Commission . +there is one basic lesson I would like us to learn from this . +when there are major set @-@ piece debates scheduled between this House and the European Commission in the future , we should clear all of our lines on what are our mutual expectations at least one full working month in advance . +there needs firstly to be clarity between all of the groups of this House and then between this House and the Commission . +we should not find ourselves late in the day in the unfortunate position where the one or other institution creates an unnecessary fracture in institutional relationships . +looking at some of the press reports of last Friday , I believe that the Commission and its President exercised commendable self @-@ restraint in the way they commented publicly . +that is something for which I have a deep appreciation . +I hope that we will learn the lessons and not repeat this unnecessary exercise which I believe was founded on a misapprehension as to what was expected rather than any bad faith on the part of either of the two institutions . +it should not be dramatised into something more than that . +thank you very much , Mr Cox . +I understand what you are saying . +we have taken note of this . +Mr President , concerning item 11 of the Minutes on the order of business , we agreed yesterday to have the Bourlanges report on today 's agenda . +however , it was withdrawn from the Committee on Budgets last night without being discussed or voted on . +it therefore needs to be withdrawn from today 's agenda . +Mr Wynn , that makes sense . +the report is hereby withdrawn from the agenda . +Mr President , regarding Mrs Lynne 's comments yesterday about health and safety in this building , I presume she was talking about the drains because there is a dreadful smell of drains on the fifth floor in the Tower . +this needs to be looked into because it is clearly an indication that something is seriously wrong . +I do not want to drag up the issue of this building endlessly , but this is a serious problem . +Mrs Ahern , we have taken note of this . +I would ask you to bring this specific case , which has to do with the ventilators on a particular floor , to the attention of the Quaestors , who are , in fact , responsible for the matter . +we will also pass this on to our services , however . +thank you very much . +( the Minutes were approved ) +reform of European competition policy +the next item is the joint debate on the following reports : +A5 @-@ 0069 / 1999 by Mr von Wogau , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the Commission White Paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty [ COM ( 1999 ) 101 - C5 @-@ 0105 / 1999 - 1999 / 2108 ( COS ) ] ; +A5 @-@ 0078 / 1999 by Mr Rapkay , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the European Commission ' s XXVIIIth Report on Competition Policy 1998 [ SEK ( 1999 ) 743 - C5 @-@ 0121 / 1999 - 1999 / 2124 ( COS ) ] ; +A5 @-@ 0087 / 1999 by Mr Jonckheer , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the seventh survey on state aid in the European Union in the manufacturing and certain other sectors . [ COM ( 1999 ) 148 - C5 @-@ 0107 / 1999 - 1999 / 2110 ( COS ) ] ( Report 1995 @-@ 1997 ) ; +A5 @-@ 0073 / 1999 by Mr Langen , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the Commission Report on the implementation in 1998 of Commission Decision No. 2496 / 96 / ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry ( Steel Aid Code ) . [ COM ( 1999 ) 94 - C5 @-@ 0104 / 1999 - 1999 / 2107 ( COS ) ] . +Mr President , Commissioner , today we are engaged in an important debate about the European Union ' s competition policy . +we are debating a highly controversial modernisation proposal for European monopolies law , that is Mr von Wogau ' s report , and it is far more controversial than the vote in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs may have given us reason to believe . +I want to make it quite clear that in this specific case I personally consider the Commission ' s proposal to be wrong and feel that it remains to be seen as to whether we are truly justified in using the term " modernisation " to describe the content of Articles 81 and 82 of the White Paper , or whether in this case it would be more appropriate to use the expression " retrograde step " . +however , we are also discussing the aid report today and the general competition report for 1998 , and my contribution to this joint debate relates to the latter . +but , of course , both the competition report and the aid report share common ground in this White Paper . +it is all about the need for modernisation and the future viability of the European competition policy . +on reading both Commission documents , one learns that 1998 was the year in which the modernisation proposals introduced in 1997 were pursued and even partially completed , which is something our own ongoing parliamentary work has taught us . +allow me to make two fundamental comments at this juncture . as the competent authority , the Commission , with its logically consistent approach , has again and again served the cause of freedom of competition , not always to the delight of the Member States or enterprises concerned . +it should continue along this path . +but , Commissioner , none of this is to become less complicated in future - one only has to think of the challenges posed by the enlargement of the Union , the deepening of the internal market , technological progress , globalisation . +indeed , it is not just about modernisation of Community law , more than anything it is about transparency of decisions taken in individual cases , about the possibility of decisions actually being able to implement decisions , for the European competition policy will be dependent on the population ' s acceptance , together with that of the political bodies and enterprises concerned . +only , without transparency there will be no acceptance , indeed there can be no modernisation without transparency . +the competition report 1998 is not a bad foundation for this but , in fact , there is nothing that could not be further improved upon . +our motion will give you a great deal of food for thought , Commissioner , but there is one point that I would just like to go into now . transparency and accountability belong together . +I do not wish to call the distribution of competences between the Commission and Parliament into question . +the Commission is the executive and Parliament ought to have no desire whatsoever to take on this role , for the sake of its own independence ; but Parliament is a supervisory body , and what better forum could there be in which to expound the reasoning behind one ' s decisions than a democratically @-@ elected Parliament , indeed an ongoing parliamentary discussion ? +here too we should continue along the path we have chosen , strengthening and intensifying it . +there is one thing I would like to make quite clear though . Parliament is a legislative body , but the fact that we have no more than the right of consultation in matters of competition law , of all things , is truly scandalous . +therefore , I would urge the Council and the Intergovernmental Conference to introduce the codecision procedure into legislation in this area . +I expect the Commission to exploit every available opportunity for parliamentary cooperation and to involve Parliament in doubtful cases , even given the Treaty status quo . +I also expect the Commission to be pro @-@ active in supporting us in our call for codecision in legislative procedures . +this will be a good test as to whether there is reasonable cooperation between the two institutions . +with all due respect for the principle of competition , competition is not , however , an end in itself . +competition is an instrument and does not always produce ideal solutions . +at the end of the day , one of the fundamental tenets of economic theory is that the market is failing in many respects and anyone who takes issue with this is nothing more than an ideologue . +competition should bring about balance in supply and demand and should provide for the optimum distribution of economic resources and facts . +but optimum efficiency does not necessarily come about of its own accord . +framework conditions are indispensable when it comes to preventing abuses , monopolies law being one example . +but on the whole , this only serves to prevent abuses ; framework conditions alone cannot achieve socially legitimate goals in isolation . +competition yes , restrictions in state aid where necessary and where possible . +however , since state aid forms the lion ' s share of the competition report 1998 I would still like , regardless of Mr Jonckheer ' s report , to say one more thing about it . it is certainly possible , indeed it must be feasible for state aid to be given to small and medium @-@ sized enterprises involved in research and development for the purpose of educating them in regional and environmental policy . +indeed it must be permissible for state aid to be provided for such purposes , provided it does not lead to unacceptable distortion of competition . +this is precisely the area where it is even more important than it is in monopolies and mergers law for decisions to be comprehensible . +it is not just that we should pillory state aid ; rather our approach must be one of drawing distinctions and we must assess the different types of state aid in accordance with the extent to which they help to achieve the above @-@ mentioned objectives . +my last comment was intended not so much for the Commission as for the Members of the Group of the European People ' s Party . +Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , the report which I have the opportunity to propose to you today is an opinion on the Commission ' s Annual Report on the state aid in force within the European Union and for which the Community is authorised under Articles 87 , 88 and 89 of the Treaties . +the Commission report is essentially a descriptive report detailing the development of state aid in the manufacturing sector and certain other sectors , according to various typologies , such as the method of financing and the objectives pursued . +to put it plainly , the level of state aid declared , roughly speaking , is generally stable during the period under discussion and comes to approximately 1.2 % of Community GDP or more or less the equivalent , coincidentally , of the Community budget for one year . +this being the case , there are considerable disparities between states , which may be measured in various ways , such as , for example , as a percentage of added value and per wage earner . +I think it is also interesting to add state aid and Community aid , which may be assimilated in some way into state aid . +this clearly shows that it is the four countries which benefit from the Cohesion Fund , among other things , which come at the top of the list . +this being the case , let me now come to the proposals made in the report . +we note , first of all , that the committee considers the data , as presented in the Commission ' s annual report , to be in too aggregated a form to enable an in @-@ depth evaluation of state aid policy which is simultaneously legitimate , sensitive to national interests and extensive in terms of compliance with the rules of competition , pursuant to the actual terms of the Treaty . +the Commission can only collate and analyse the data provided by the Member States . +it is therefore down to the states and regions to ensure the quality of the data provided , and our committee considers that additional efforts must be made in this respect . +it is in this spirit that our parliamentary committee for example , has championed the longstanding idea of a public register of state aid , accessible via the Internet . +having better , more detailed information available , particularly with regard to the objectives pursued and the results recorded , must make it possible for the European Commission to itself proceed or to commission in a regular manner studies of the social and economic evaluation of national and regional state aid policies . +and insofar as such studies already exist , to publish more openly its own comments with regard to the objectives of the Treaties , which are not only to ensure the competitivity of the European economy , but also sustainable development and economic and social cohesion . +by stressing , primarily , the quality of the information provided , our debate in committee , and hence the report which it is my honour to present to you , avoided a simplistic response in the form of an a priori statement that the level of state aid was , in absolute terms , either too high or not high enough . +most committee members have sought rather to find a balance between , on the one hand , the need to see that both states and businesses comply with the competition rules and , on the other hand , acknowledgement of the value of such aid with a view to contributing to the objectives of the Treaty , particularly , as I have said already , as regards sustainable development , research and development and economic and social cohesion . +this being the case , various amendments to the rapporteur ' s initial draft report were adopted in committee , particularly highlighting the need for effective reimbursement of aid found to be illegal as well as the establishment of a league table of results . +seven amendments have been retabled for this plenary sitting . +most of them are an expression of the political differences among ourselves regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of state aid , in view of the inadequacies , acknowledged or not , of private investment alone , the market failures or inadequacies of the market . +there is in particular one amendment , let me point out , concerning the energy sector , which , in my capacity as rapporteur , I see as particularly important . +I should like to conclude this presentation , Commissioner , by stressing two things : firstly , a concern of the members of the committee and , secondly , a demand of our committee . +the concern involves the pre @-@ accession process for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe , in terms of competition policy and state aid . +this is undoubtedly a complex issue , and one where we should like to see the Commission informing us of the latest development in the matter , particularly in terms of the capacity of the economies involved in the accession process to comply with competition rules and , as far as state aid is concerned , the need , in all probability , to have specific rules on state aid used to assist restructuring of their sectors . +and finally , in conclusion , our demand regarding the future responsibilities of the European Parliament in the matters we are discussing , competition policy and state aid , in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference . +as you know , Commissioner , our report argues that the codecision procedure should apply in the case of basic legislation on state aid . +Mr President , Commissioner , my contribution to today ' s debate concerns the steel aid code , that is the state aid in Europe granted in accordance with this code and which was assessed by the Commission . +there were a total of 27 cases in 1998 and the Commission submitted its own report on these . +the ECSC Treaty is due to expire shortly . +hence , what we must focus on today is the question as to how state aid is to be managed in future . +the European Commission ' s decisions , which feature in the report , are welcomed by the European Parliament , as is the decision to ask for the money back in specific cases , thus applying Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty . +the competitiveness of the European steel industry also forms the subject of the Commission ' s most recent communication , which we have not yet debated in Parliament . +as in other sectors , the general ban on state aid according to Article 87 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty also applies to the iron and steel industry . +according to this article , state aid is irreconcilable with the common market , in principle . +exemptions are only permitted in precisely defined cases . +under Article 88 , the Commission is obliged to supervise state aid . +in 1998 , the largest case concerned the supply of company capital totalling EUR 540 million to the PREUSSAG in Germany . +furthermore , the Member States must give the Commission advance warning with regard to their intentions concerning state aid . +the rules pertaining to the steel industry were drawn up on 18 December 1996 . +these stipulate that state aid can only be awarded to the steel industry in particular , precisely @-@ defined cases i.e. those involving aid for research and development , aid for environmental protection , social security to ease the closure of steelworks and aid to help non @-@ competitive enterprises cease trading altogether . +in addition , there is a special provision of up to EUR 50 million for Greece . +however , there were obviously problems with the practical administration of the steel aid code over the past few years that were not brought fully to bear in the report . +as far as Parliament is concerned , it is important for us to waste no time in getting down to a debate on the regulations that are to succeed this state aid code once it has expired . +there must be no watering @-@ down of the existing principles underlying the steel aid code . +no one wants an unimpeded subsidy competition in Europe . +this would be to the considerable disadvantage of the internal market , regardless of the fact that the steel industry has undergone consolidation in the past few years . +consequently , Parliament believes it is necessary for the steel aid code to be amended in the light of the industry ' s claims about unequal treatment , and for the Commission to provide the Council with follow @-@ up regulations . +we all know that so far the Council has dragged its feet with regard to follow @-@ up regulations of this kind . +the reason for this is that people are under the impression that once the steel aid code expires , they will be able to do their own thing again without the inconvenience of the European Commission ' s supervision . +we therefore demand that once the Treaty expires , steel aid must be regulated by a Council regulation according to Article 94 , for that is the only way to create the necessary legal validity and clarity . +this is the only way to enforce the strict ban on all aid not covered by the code . +a Council regulation that is directly applicable law must also be observed by the regional governments . +what we need to avoid doing in the future is compromising competition conditions and disturbing the balance in the markets . +we also need to criticise the Commission ' s practice of approving multiple aid packages for steel enterprises which in their view , do not fall within the categories of the code , even given the fact that the European Court of Justice approved this unequal treatment where certain individual decisions were concerned . +the Commission will be called upon , in a report that has yet to be compiled for the year 1999 , to give a detailed explanation of its active role in the elaboration of restructuring plans and approved exemptions , thus enabling a proper assessment of the overall situation to be made . +once the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted the draft report unanimously with two abstentions , I would ask that we make full use of this opportunity , which we have ourselves created , in plenary sitting . +Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , the internal market is not complete . +subsidies , monopolies and barriers to competition are still impeding markets and development alike . +national governments provide subsidies and promise that this is the last time , but then it happens again . +subsidies distort allocations , both within and between countries . +a successive phasing out of State aid is required , and more and more markets must be opened up to competition . this applies to those which have been turned into monopolies , both private and public . +public monopolies are , more often than not , phased out reluctantly . +increased competition and newly established organisations should be able to provide significant benefits in terms of welfare , including within the spheres of education , health care and social services . +public monopolies must be replaced by competitive structures . +Europe must be modernised , made more entrepreneurial in spirit and adapted in such a way that it becomes a more competitive environment for consumers and companies . +effective competition pushes prices down and raises standards of living . +it is precisely upon price levels that consumer policy has failed to focus sufficiently . in fact , competition policy and consumer policy belong together . +the internal market is the basis for our work . +its legislation is to apply equally to all , to large and small countries alike . +a systematic survey of the various national regulations is needed if barriers to competition are to be dismantled . the EU ' s own regulations too may therefore need to be analysed . +the new model now being tested by the Commission ought not to lead to a process of nationalisation pure and simple which would undermine the established competition policy . +in order to be effective , it must be well anchored in the Member States ' national authorities . +in six months ' time , it may be appropriate to carry out an analysis of the outcome and also to look more closely at the new situation ' s effects upon the Commission ' s role . +the question of how best to make further progress has so far been solved through the idea of holding an inter @-@ institutional congress which will open up an unbiased debate adopting a broad perspective and involving representatives of different interests . +this will provide the opportunity to establish new principles or to return to the more radical changes which have been discussed . there will also be the opportunity to find new common solutions and to analyse amendments from the committee debate . +the law must be correctly applied in matters of competition . +wrongly applied competition policy may cause losses in the legal sphere and interfere with the right of ownership , which is an important and basic principle we should stand up for . +we have a quite exciting debate in front of us . +a conference where the issues are properly debated will make it possible to straighten out misunderstandings , at the same time as perhaps improving upon certain points . +Parliament and the Commission can together increase their efforts to achieve an effective competition policy and so create new opportunities and new resources for our citizens . +in fact , in my own constituency of Stockholm , we have many good local examples of increased supply and improved quality which have arisen precisely because of exposure to competition in areas which were previously total monopolies . +we would encourage a continuation of the open debate which has been strengthened in the course of consideration of the reports by Mr von Wogau and Mr Rapkay . +we hope that the legal points of view will also be accorded the importance which is only reasonable in a state based on the rule of law . +Mr President , as a new Member I am pleased to be able to make my maiden speech here today , even though there has been a delay . +I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteurs Mr von Wogau , Mr Langen , Mr Rapkay and Mr Jonckheer , as well as the Commission , for their excellent cooperation . +competition is certainly fundamental to the social market economy and European competition policy is a success story ; take the energy and telecommunications sectors , where there has been a demonstrable lowering of prices and improvement in quality of service . +all this is to the good of the consumer . +but we have now arrived at a point where we need to develop competition policy further . +the Commission has put forward a new White Paper on this containing two key points : dropping the obligation to notify and retrodisplacement of law enforcement . +dropping the obligation to notify will mean less red tape and administration costs , at any rate . +at the same time , this change of system will also lead to more onus being placed on the individual in the business world , of course . +it will no longer simply be a case of submitting papers and having them approved ; for one thing , each person will have to take responsibility themselves , and that is probably why there is unease about this in other quarters . +however I believe that we should use this opportunity for Europe to set down a marker for less red tape . +the second point relates to the retrodisplacement of law enforcement . +if we are to create a culture of law in Europe , then there is no doubt that the law must be applied not only by the Commission , by central bodies , but also by national authorities , by national courts . +we are not discussing the fact that although every EU law is only ever decided on centrally , it is precisely the adaptation phase where we will experience a lack of legal certainty . +it will certainly be necessary to develop an instrument for this in the anticipated legislative procedure that will enable enterprises to enjoy legal certainty and to have recourse to the Commission in this matter . +the way to a European monopolies commission must be kept clear , something that will certainly form a subject for future discussion . +but we need there to be more transparency in the competition policy . +Parliament must have more involvement and I also believe that if we were to introduce a register in which we could ascertain what state aid is being granted , then this would encourage the Member States to be more disciplined . +however , when it comes to what the future holds for competition , there are two issues dear to my heart . +one is subsidiarity . +we all hold the view that competition is vital to the economy and requires there to be efficiency , and I believe we should also permit competition in the regions . +competition between the regions will certainly strengthen rather than weaken the European Union . +I would cite , by way of example , the issue of job creation schemes , savings banks and regional banks , and Gütesiegel . +here , a region has , by its own efforts , created a means of marketing its own products . +this own initiative must not be destroyed by European intervention . +I believe there is also a need to raise the de minimis regulation . +we should do everything within our power to force the regions into a situation where they have to compete with each other . +my second point relates to discussion about competition and the social market economy , although I am not going to talk about market failure just now . +I have already referred to the regional and savings bank sector , but I would just like to focus on a matter one hears again and again in certain quarters . +these days , someone who lives in an old people ' s home is accommodated within the social field . +however , I could also regard them as a customer , and I believe we should enter into rather clear and timely discussion on the ways in which the social field , that is evolved structures , stifle competition . +apart from that , I could refer to any customers , any sector , as customers , and thereby have a highly destructive effect on social fields . +to conclude , I would just like to say something on the principle of subsidiarity . I believe it to be of vital importance that where Member States allow regions and local authorities to raise taxes , they should continue to be able to do so and not be subject to across- the @-@ board regulation by Europe . +thank you very much , Mr Radwan . +I would like to congratulate you on what is referred to in German parliamentary @-@ speak , inappropriately in your case , as a maiden speech . +Mr President , Commissioner , I am speaking on behalf of my fellow Member , Robert Goebbels , who is unable to attend due to a political commitment . +within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , the Jonckheer report has given rise to bitter controversy on the subject of the operation of the market . +a slim right @-@ wing majority succeeded in removing any reference to market failures . +even if the majority in this House were to adhere to this ultraliberal idea of a supposedly perfect market , it would not make any difference to the real world . +economic relationships in the real world adequately demonstrate that eliminating all public intervention in the market does not in any way bring about perfect competition and the optimum distribution of resources . +while , since the dawn of time , the market has been the key forum for human interchange , it has never been perfect . +the market favours the short term and immediate profits . +on the market , the balance of power between supply and demand are generally to the detriment of the weakest parties , consumers and workers . +in order to function , the market needs rules . +the necessary and valuable spirit of initiative must be offset by a sense of responsibility towards society . +we European Socialists are in favour of a market economy with a social purpose . +the market is not an end in itself ; it must help to improve the human condition . +the European Union or individual States must not take over from economic operators , but public authorities must define the rules and objectives which enable the economy to develop in a sustainable fashion . +finally , aid can enable restructuring , offer training , save jobs and thus know @-@ how . +the main objective of the Union ' s competition policy cannot be to reduce the overall level of aid . +this aid must be aligned with the objectives of the Union , particularly economic and social cohesion , sustainable development and research . +the Commission must track down the illegal aid and the aid which actually hinders the internal market . +it would be a serious mistake to eliminate all public aid . +the Internet is not a product of the market , but the result of research financed by the American army . +the World Wide Web , which has enabled the meteoric development of the information society , was developed by CERN in Geneva , once again with public aid . +the German Government ' s intervention to save the Holzmann group was criticised as an unjustifiable constraint upon the market economy . +President Duisenberg even attempted to attribute the weakness , the entirely relative weakness of the euro in relation to the dollar to this state interventionism . +I did not hear Mr Duisenberg criticising the intervention of the American monetary authorities to save the hedge fund , LTCM . +wishing to save 60 000 jobs is , apparently , a sin against the market , but saving capital does not seem to present any problem for the advocates of the free market . +public monies are used in order to repair the damage caused by international speculation , as was the case in Mexico , Asia and Brazil . +human labour , on the other hand , is considered to be a simple factor in the equation . +we Socialists reject the liberals ' naïve optimism on this point . +we want a true culture of competition in Europe . +the state hand must still be clearly seen to regulate the market and the Commission must act as judge . +Mr President , Commissioner , I want to begin by thanking Mr Rapkay for a good report and constructive cooperation . +I want to thank you , Commissioner Monti , for your outstanding cooperation and I want to tell you that , as we enter the new millennium , you have an especially important role . it is your job to tidy up the mess left by national governments . +these may well have grand visions when it comes to competition policy , but their capacity to wreak havoc seems boundless . +let me mention the latest examples we have seen : Holzmann , a company which receives considerable aid from the German Government ; sawmills in former East Germany ; and , especially , aid to shipyards . +these are three areas in which many Danish companies are experiencing major problems and are being squeezed out of their markets . +I want to say to Mr Poos that I very much agree with Mr Duisenberg that these examples show that some EU Member States are not in a position to restructure their economies and , to that extent , are helping to undermine the value of the euro . +the Group of the European Liberal , Democrat and Reform Party has tabled 80 amendments in the committee , all concerning state aid . +these are amendments which we believe will lead to transparency and openness , which is very important with a view to making the internal market work . +I should like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the committee for supporting the amendments tabled by the Group of the European Liberal , Democrat and Reform Party . +as I say , our amendments concern transparency , and I should like to emphasise the amendment which urges the Commission to propose uniform criteria and conditions for the type of state aids we consider to be lawful , specifically in order to ensure that companies can predict what their situation will be . +another issue is that of what we are to do when state aid is declared unlawful . +how do we ensure that unlawful state aid is paid back ? +at present , there are no common rules in this area , and we vigorously urge the Commission to make a point of harmonising the rules on repayment . +this is the way forward if we are to ensure uniform conditions of competition . +finally , we propose keeping both a register , as mentioned by a number of my fellow MEPs , and also a scoreboard showing where the Member States at present stand with regard to state aid . +you have shown us the way , Mr Monti , with the single market scoreboard . +it was this which inspired us to propose the same thing with regard to state aid . +I very much hope that you , Commissioner Monti , will support these amendments , and I look forward to your comments and to finding out where you stand on this matter . +to conclude , I want to welcome the Commission ' s XVIIIth Report on Competition Policy , on which , once again , a good deal of work has been done . +but , as I have already mentioned , our overriding objectives ought still to be those of transparency and openness . +there is still a need to tighten up in the areas mentioned , and there is therefore good reason for continuing to work resolutely towards solving the problems concerning the lack of transparency and openness in the area of state aid . +this is especially necessary in relation to the forthcoming enlargement of the Union , and I should like to thank Mr Jonckheer who , in his report , has considered very thoroughly the problems associated with enlargement and with ensuring that the applicant countries are able to meet our criteria , as well as with ensuring common conditions of competition . +as Liberals and Greens , we clearly have different opinions on how the world should look , but we are well on the way to agreement as to our objectives , and we shall try to find reasonable solutions to our problems . +Mr President , Commissioner , there are just two questions which must be answered . +are state aid to business or inter @-@ company agreements legitimate in a market economy , and who must supervise these exceptions to the absolute rules of the market economy ? +regarding the first point , we say quite clearly that , in order to take into consideration the requirements of sustainable development which the European Union has endorsed , it is essential that , in some instances , there is state aid to businesses , be it in the form of tax exemptions , special taxation or even direct aid . +it is also legitimate for there to be inter @-@ company agreements and voluntary restraint agreements , since all these agreements make it possible to reduce the detrimental effects of competition on social or ecological requirements . +so our clear response is that , yes , such aid and such agreements are legitimate , but we say that every single one of these agreements must be expressly justified . +the von Wogau report proposes referring supervision of the legitimacy of individual cases to national level . +we feel this is relatively dangerous , but all the same we shall vote in favour of it because we recognise that the Commission cannot do everything . +we demand that the greatest possible transparency should be in place and that greater powers of investigation be granted to the Commission in order to check the legitimacy of such exceptions after the fact . +Mr President , once again we are debating the European Union ' s competition policy . +but let us stop to consider the circumstances in which this debate is taking place and the conclusions to which it should bring us . +the overriding features of today ' s economy are massive mergers and acquisitions involving huge companies with a market monopoly and the emergence of frighteningly powerful multinational groups . +should we not be discussing this issue ? +we need a competition policy which can and will introduce controls on the activities of these private @-@ sector monopolies . +certain sectors of European industry , such as the shipbuilding industry , air transport and the steel industry , which have been hard hit by existing competition policy , have suffered tremendously . +they have lost their status , and a significant slice of the world market and hundreds of thousands of workers have been made redundant . +when will we debate that ? +the scandalous concentration of power in sectors of strategic importance is giving speculative multinational groups economies the size of entire states , and Member States of the Union at that . +and yet , we keep on weakening the public sector and we are ready and willing to tighten competition policy yet further by qualifying public procurement contracts placed with public @-@ sector corporations as state aid . +at the same time , unemployment is spiralling as a result of the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs . +workers are facing a massive attack on their employment and social rights . +consumers see their standard of living being eroded , poverty spreading and the public sector and production base in most countries in the Union being dismantled and dissolved in the name of unadulterated and catastrophic competition , in the name of the absolute market economy and the promotion of the monopolistic interests of big business . +we consider the competition policy to be responsible for all this and are totally opposed to it . +Mr President , Commissioner , in the course of this pivotal year , prior to the changeover to the single currency , the Commission has deployed every effort to ensure the birth of the euro in a favourable environment . +the competition policy has , as far as these resources permitted , contributed to this event . +for our part , we remain staunchly opposed to the single currency which , far from bringing us the advantages and flexibility of a shared currency , imprisons us in an artificial straitjacket , which has been imposed on the peoples of Europe . +having said that , governing means planning . it also means being responsible and , in this new context which has been forced upon us , competition law naturally has an essential role to play . +in this area , the Commission has given priority to a number of routes of action : acting on the structure of markets by actively combating anti @-@ competitive practices , by refocusing its departments ' supervisory activities only upon matters with a manifest Community interest and by affirming its intention to modernise competition law . +as regards state aid , it is essential to ensure that regulations are not made more complex , and the introduction of a public register , where all aid would be recorded , does not seem advisable to us since this onerous commitment would quite naturally run counter to the attempts to simplify bureaucratic constraints . +finally , on the subject of modernising the implementation of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty , we do not think that decentralised application would necessarily be going in the right direction . +the Commission is , in fact , retaining not only the power to take matters out of the jurisdiction of national authorities , but clearly obliging the national jurisdictions to avoid disputing the decisions of the Commission at all . +national states would thus become the secular arm of the Commission regarding observance of the application of rules which they do not control . +in conclusion , I would say that while some measures are heading in the right direction , we shall of course remain vigilant in order to prevent the snowballing of Federalism which , if it were realised , would be to the detriment of Europe and the sovereignty of the states . +Mr President , Commissioner , we have a basically positive view of the Commission ' s White Paper on competition , particularly as regards the abolition of the system of notification and authorisation , but we are also puzzled by several things . +in this respect , we should heed the words of von Eieck , and doubtless also those of the great Italian liberal Bruno Leoni , who warned precisely against the risks of an abnormal increase in anti @-@ competition policies . +State interference in the economy is , even today , still to blame for the most serious hindrances placed in the way of the market , competition and freedom of choice for European users and consumers . +there is State aid for businesses - we have already discussed this , there is still a strong public presence in the economy - it is estimated that the Italian Treasury controls 15 % of stock exchange capitalisation ; governments and central banks place obstacles in the way of mergers and acquisitions ; and there has been much talk in recent weeks about Vodafone ' s bid for Mannesmann and the bailout of Holzmann . +finally , Commissioner , we cannot forget that large sections of the economy are still firmly in the hands of the state , ranging from state television , which is funded on a mandatory basis by the taxpayer , and the Post Office , to some compulsory insurance schemes , including health and social welfare systems , which are managed by inefficient state monopolies which leave no @-@ one but the wealthy user with any other option . +Commissioner , I am quite familiar with the constraints imposed by the Treaties , but I believe that , it must be emphasised once again that the European economy is finding it hard to compete with the American economy , especially because of insufficiently open markets and a lack of genuine competition . +what is being done may well be very important , but it is still not sufficient . +Mr President , we are holding a special debate : on competition policy and state aid , the government ' s right and left hand , so to speak . +whilst the EMU criteria are forcing Member States to curb expenditure , the high level of state aid to industry has so far remained in place . +this is understandable , because it is highly likely that Member States which start to cut back on state aid will cause companies to leave , with adverse effects on employment . +but , at the same time , this is not understandable because bad management and non @-@ viable jobs should not be funded by taxpayers ' money . +in principle , only horizontal regulations are permissible because they do not distort , or hardly distort , competition . +the rapporteur ' s Amendments Nos 6 and 7 , therefore , deserve our support . +amendments Nos 1 and 5 make reference to the phenomenon of market failure because the market instrument in itself does not result in the ideal society . +vulnerable people find themselves hardest hit . +market forces must be employed in a sophisticated manner to do full justice to the responsibility of citizens and companies . +if this comes to nothing , then the government has to step in . +the Commission ' s White Paper on modernising competition policy seems more like a discussion paper . +the plea in favour of decentralisation in order to lighten the load within the Directorate @-@ General on Competition is a kind gesture , but the way in which the Commission would like to carry this through would lead to the judiciary being stretched . +this would be at the expense of legal certainty within industry . +does the pressure of work within the Commission really decrease when national judges are required to report to the Commission ? +what is the Council ' s opinion on this and is the Commissioner prepared to completely reconsider these points ? +Mr President , a White Paper , by definition , is not something you can take or leave . +it is there to generate reactions and the White Paper has certainly succeeded in doing that . +it forms a sound basis for discussion and is to be welcomed in this sense . +I understand where the authors are coming from and I share their views . +I also assume that you , Commissioner , want to honour the reputation of , and the work put in by , your predecessors and that your offices will pursue the same objective . +I cannot imagine the Commission taking initiatives in order to de @-@ Europeanise or re @-@ nationalise in a thorough manner , but I have my concerns and questions nevertheless . +firstly , these relate to the coherence of the policy ' s application . +in general , I am a great defender of cultural diversity but not in terms of competitiveness within the internal market . +the internal market needs a uniform competition policy , not only in terms of concept , but also in terms of application . +it is true , there are some European regulations and interpretative statements on the way . +the Commission is also said to have the right of evocation and can give guidelines to the national competition authorities . +but I still wonder if we do not run the risk of ending up in a kind of Echternach procession where we will have to take one step back before we are able to take two steps forward . +so , I would like to hear more about how the Commission will guarantee this uniform application in practice and whether you yourself consider the courses outlined from point one hundred onwards in the White Paper to be feasible . +secondly , I understand the worry of industry regarding legal certainty . +many dossiers are currently being filed with precisely this concern . +this instrument will fall by the wayside in future . +in the White Paper , you state that the Commission will still issue particular orders which can be used as guidelines , but what will your criteria be for granting such orders one day but not the next ? +thirdly , I would like to know whether the Commission has looked into the effects its new approach will have on industrial strategy . +I have particular concerns regarding the fate of SMEs which will lose part of their legal and financial protection , as is already the case , one has got to admit , within the new vertical group exemption for the distribution sector . +fourthly , I would like to be informed of why the Commission does not choose to apply the invalidity penalty in the case of evident infringements of the competition rules . +fifthly , with the pending enlargement , I wonder whether the candidate counties will be able to play our game . +they are still in training , as it were . +what guarantees do we have that they will grow into first @-@ class players in the league of the internal market ? +sixthly and lastly , I would remind you of a point that I have already raised in my report on vertical restrictions , namely the legal privilege of company lawyers . +if the Commission implements the White Paper objectives , it seems to me that discrimination within the internal market and between external and internal legal advisers will become more pronounced and hence even less acceptable . +is the Commission considering taking any action to allow in @-@ house lawyers in all Member States legal privilege ? +Commissioner , I am asking these questions as a defender of the internal market and I hope that , in this sense , we are all partners and that the discussion between these partners does not remain sterile but can bear fruit . +Mr President , I would like , in beginning my speech regarding the White Paper , to congratulate the rapporteur , Mr von Wogau . +the fact that the Group of the Party of European Socialists is very much in agreement with your report is clearly demonstrated by the fact that only one amendment has been presented during this procedure . |