IN THE CHAIR: MR COX
President

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)

  Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to ask how Question Time came to be dropped yesterday although there was enough time to include it in the course of the part-session. There is no Question Time today either. I believe that this is one of Members' fundamental rights and I would like to ask that Question Time should be held whenever possible.

  President. – That question was discussed in the Conference of Presidents when we planned this session and the special event of yesterday. The draft agenda was then put to Parliament by me at the opening of business on Monday. No objection was raised at that time, which would have been a more appropriate time to seek to rearrange the agenda.

I point this out to you for future reference should there be a similar occasion when you wish to raise the matter so that it can be put to the vote on Monday at 5 p.m.

  Wynn (PSE). – Mr President, in relation to yesterday's Minutes, under item 2 in the errata section there is a comment about Amendment No 742 on the budget. The general rapporteur and I would disagree with what is printed here, but I am not too sure what the correction should be. Before we agree that as a Minute, can we have an investigation into what exactly the vote was on so as to clarify the situation?

  President. – Let us clarify that in the course of the morning and then at 3 p.m., when we deal with the Minutes, we can make sure that the record is accurate.

  Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, I ask you to join me in welcoming my two constituents, Paul and Lesley Coppin from Mildenhall in Suffolk, who are in the Chamber this morning. They are two of the fourteen British and Dutch plane-spotters who were thankfully acquitted of charges of espionage in their recent appeal hearing in Greece. I know that they are very grateful and would want me to put on record their gratitude to MEPs from all the different countries of the EU who supported their case. They are with us in Strasbourg this week because they are determined to work with us on new minimum standards for defendants in criminal cases Europe-wide. This is something that the Commission is proposing in its work programme, which happily we are about to discuss.

  President. – I am sure we all celebrate with you the happy outcome to that matter.

  Martin, Hans-Peter (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, you know that I am not one of these people who abuse the opportunity of raising a point of order. Furthermore, I did not want to disturb yesterday's ceremony, but I would like to bring to your attention, as President of this House, an incident that took place here on Monday evening, particularly in connection with countries still wishing to accede to the European Union.

At about 8 p.m. a suspicious vehicle was found near the entrance. The police therefore cordoned off the entrance but the chaos they caused was such that even people who commonly use this word to describe the police's behaviour would feel it did not do justice to this situation. People trying to enter the Parliament building, including our staff, were bellowed at by the police in an extremely aggressive way.

I then arrived at the scene myself and asked what was going on. At first I was further away – some people were allowed to stay, but others were not. When I was then referred to the head of the task force, I was not only told that these were regional police officers, but also, despite my demanding them several times, they refused to give their serial numbers or even their names.

Maybe you will understand if I say that I was reminded at that moment of a forceful slogan shouted out a few years ago by a group chairman in this House – 'CRS equals SS!' I have to say that I found this action by the CRS, the French riot squad, unfitting in a democracy and I believe that it was detrimental to this House. I therefore ask you to take appropriate follow-up action.

  President. – Mr Martin, this is the first time the incident has been drawn to my attention. We will look into it and make contact with the authorities as appropriate.

  Caudron (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, I would not want to abuse this kind of intervention either, but I am shocked by the comments of the Member sitting in front of me. Combating terrorism has certainly placed all the security services under great pressure, but, if I have understood the translation correctly, comparing the French riot police to the SS, in this House, seems to me to be profoundly shocking. I wanted to make that clear.

  President. – Well, let us look at the incident in a calm and reflective way and see whether there are any practical lessons we can learn.

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement on the annual legislative and work programme for 2003.

  Prodi, President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members. Today's sitting winds up two very special days here in Strasbourg. Yesterday we discussed enlargement and I confess the occasion was moving and gratifying. Today, in the presence of the full Commission I am here to present our legislative and work programme for the coming year.

This year the programme bears witness to a new method. In line with our agreement of last January, the main EU institutions have set up a structured political dialogue.

Over the last few months, all Members of the Commission have been available to discuss the Commission's priorities in their areas of responsibility before the relevant parliamentary committees.

I would emphasise that the Commission sets much store by Parliament’s valuable contribution to this process.

This being the first year of application, there is of course room for improvement. This year's experience will help us improve in the future. But the results so far are very encouraging.

Let me mention the major innovations of the working method the Commission followed this year.

First, this Work Programme must be seen as a big step towards a more highly integrated and coherent planning process for the EU as a whole. So it is also intended as an important contribution to the Council’s first annual operating programme as decided at the Seville European Council.

For the first time the programme sets out not only our new proposals but also the main proposals already adopted by the Commission and still to be considered by the Council. This will allow Parliament to take part too in planning this vital aspect of legislative work. The Commission hopes that the three main institutions can reach an agreement on the interinstitutional dimension of this planning process by the end of the year.

Secondly, our new working method is not based solely on interinstitutional dialogue but also on a constant exchange of information during the operational phase and on more transparency for the public.

In 2003 the Commission will send Parliament and the Council regular monthly updates of its operational planning. This will take the form of a three-monthly rolling programme giving ample information on proposals adopted.

The public will be able to follow all stages of the dialogue step by step since the documents forwarded will be accessible via our web pages.

President,

Better coordination between the institutions, enhanced planning of legislative work and more information for the public are tangible proof of our determination to make the EU institutions more efficient and to give them a sounder democratic basis.

This shows we are putting into practice the guidelines set out in last year's White Paper on European Governance. These are not just technical innovations, but a vital step forward in the development of our integration project.

⁂

Honourable Members,

As I said yesterday, our main challenge for the coming year will be enlargement once more. So it is naturally our top priority for 2003.

The priorities identified by the Commission are:

· an enlarged EU,

· stability and security, and

· a sustainable and inclusive economy.

These priorities have already been endorsed by the Council and this Assembly. I will now look at how the Commission intends implementing them next year.

⁂

We spoke extensively of enlargement yesterday. Today I simply want to stress the Commission's commitment to ensure that all parties involved in the process are capable of meeting their responsibilities from day one of accession.

The candidate countries must have carried over into national law and be actually implementing the body of Community legislation. This process has been going on for years now and it has produced excellent results, but the final phase needs to be monitored with special care.

For our part, I must stress how urgent it is to overhaul the EU's architecture so it can meet the challenges of 2004. There is a qualitative dimension to enlargement that must not be underestimated.

I rely on the wisdom of the Convention that is still in progress and on the Intergovernmental Conference that will be turning its recommendations into a genuine constitutional text for the EU.

⁂

The Commission's two other priorities for 2003 have a close link with enlargement.

The goal of ensuring stability and security throughout the EU is at the forefront of the Commission's concerns because the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of our people depends on this.

Harmony can only be achieved by balancing the fight against terrorism and crime with full respect for the freedoms and rights that are fundamental to our political and social model. And this will allow the EU to develop an area of freedom, security and justice.

We must also step up surveillance of our external borders. This calls for special preparations on the part of the future Member States, which will have to control most of the EU's land borders.

We also need to consolidate our policies on migration flows, asylum rights and the integration of immigrants who come in legally. The need to integrate legal immigrants into our societies must be put back at the centre of our immigration policy. After all, legal immigration boosts Europe's cultural and economic wealth.

At a time when the EU is both expanding and deciding on its future structure, it is crucial to give new impetus to our policy towards the EU’s closest neighbours. Each day I am more and more convinced that we need to develop a comprehensive strategy vis-à-vis the countries on the borders of the enlarged EU, stretching from Russia to the Mediterranean.

The EU's definitive borders have recently become the centre of debate. Here I believe we must break with the reasoning that contrasts the countries on the inside with those on the outside. I realise this is not easy, but we need to work out and propose a new kind of partnership that makes use of all the instruments available.

We must not see our borders as a wall. But nor must we see them as rolling forward inexorably.

Our neighbourhood policy needs to be spelled out. We must come up to our neighbours' legitimate expectations, and our response must be based on cooperation. At the same time, we must press ahead with our political project for Europe.

Lastly, the Commission intends playing its full role on the international scene. In line with our traditional commitments, next year too we will work to consolidate stability in the Balkans. And we will spare no effort in the search to create new conditions that can finally bring peace to the Middle East.

⁂

The third major priority for the coming year is economic policy.

In the current economic climate, people are rightly asking what the EU will do to help restore growth and create jobs.

Let us not forget that we must meet our objectives of sustainable economic prosperity and social inclusion.

A few weeks ago, we discussed the coordination of economic policy and the Stability and Growth Pact in this house.

In the next few days we will be putting forward proposals for improving the application of the Pact and for more coordinated management of budgetary policies within Economic and Monetary Union.

The basic aim is to put public finances on a sounder and more sustainable footing. This involves ensuring that the rules are implemented both intelligently and with authority so as to foster growth and employment.

These proposals form part of a more general strategy to strengthen economic policy coordination and governance. To that end, in 2003 we will improve the Commission's work of assessment and monitoring and its proactive role.

This will usher in a more flexible approach that can draw all our procedures together within a single coordination cycle. This will bring better synchronisation of the Spring Report on progress under the Lisbon Strategy with the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and the Employment Guidelines.

2003 will mark the tenth anniversary of the Single Market. We will report on the achievements and benefits it has brought EU citizens and consumers. But we must not forget that, though it represents a huge step forward, in some sectors the work is not over.

I am thinking of services and particularly of financial services. 2003 is also the deadline we have set for the completion of the internal market for risk capital and securities.

These reforms will pave the way for easier financing of innovation, on which sustained growth and job creation rests in our economies. Innovation and investment in human resources and technology will feature high in the Commission's Spring Report next year.

Externally, the goal is to control and manage the process of globalisation so the largest possible number enjoy its benefits.

The European integration project is viewed by all as the sole example of democratic management of globalisation. Our experience is unique and we must ensure the poorest regions of the planet in particular can draw on it.

Next year there is an important engagement scheduled for the Doha Development Agenda. In September the World Trade Organisation will be holding its ministerial-level meeting in Cancún. Both there and elsewhere, the Commission will ensure that the commitments entered into at Kyoto, Monterrey and Johannesburg are made good.

This means we must not disappoint the confidence the world has in us. And that means delivering in terms of intelligent management of the environment, trade and development.

⁂

Everything I have said today is a clear illustration that the economic, social and environmental threads of our policies are all intertwined both in planning and in execution.

This development of our philosophy and approach was endorsed and given impetus by the conclusions of the Seville European Council last June.

The legislative and work programme I am presenting today therefore represents a major step towards better European governance.

From next year on, the Commission will begin preliminary analyses of subsidiarity and proportionality in respect of around 40 selected proposals and will examine their economic, social and environmental impact. Such analyses will streamline and replace the Commission's current impact-assessment instruments.

This approach needs to be applied pragmatically and progressively. From 2004 on, the method will be fully operational. It will then form an integral part of the whole legislative process, starting with the Annual Policy Strategy we will present in February and the legislative and the work programme to follow.

⁂

Honourable Members,

This Work Programme seeks to bring more continuity and coherence to our political action through ever-closer cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

The discussions that led up to it confirm the soundness of the Community method. It gives the system the practical impact and political perspective the EU needs to achieve its goals.

The European integration project is now around half a century old. In historical terms it is still in its infancy. Each passing year is critical and may mark it enduringly.

We are all aware of this, and yet 2003 will be quite special. To me the coming year will be crucial for Europe's history.

At a time when we are all thinking actively about the EU's future, it is vital to bear in mind the full potential the EU could develop so we can see where reforms are really needed.

Let me close by calling on you all to think about that. May that thought serve to inspire and guide us, to bring us all closer together, and to heighten our awareness of the great responsibility we bear.

Thank you.

  President. – I should like to thank Minister Haarder for being here. This is the first time that the Council has actually been present for the presentation of the legislative programme.

  Grossetête (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President of Parliament, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, you told us, Mr Prodi, that we would inaugurate a new method which would allow the three institutions, in drawing up the Commission legislative and work programme for 2003, to work more closely together. We would like to emphasise the importance of this new method. For the first time, Parliament, the Council and the Commission have engaged in a constructive dialogue to establish a legislative programme. We are particularly in favour of this cooperation and especially of increasing initial discussions between Parliament and the Commission. Although this dialogue did indeed take place last spring, however, it was difficult to differentiate between this specific legislative planning exercise and what are known as regular meetings which take place throughout the year between parliamentary committees and commissioners in their respective fields of competence. In future we will probably need greater preparation and a better structure for this dialogue and, in particular, each Commissioner will probably have to present initial guidelines for each specific legislative field. The single document ‘Annual Policy Strategy for 2003’ presented by the Commission in February proved insufficient, and this situation could –appear harmful, as 2003 is a particularly important year due to enlargement. I did note, however, Mr President, that you would like the Commission to present monthly reports to Parliament.

Having said this, we welcome the three political priorities set by the Commission and we would like to make the following comments:

On the first point, entitled ‘An enlarged Europe’, our primary concern is to ensure that the Community acquis is properly applied throughout the enlarged Union. It is therefore crucial for a codified version of Community law to be available in all the languages of the new Member States. Successful enlargement means including the environmental aspect and the objective of public health and consumer protection in all the other policies, as well as taking account – as you said yourself – of human resources, and it also means being innovative. Lastly, it means monitoring the application of Community legislation, and we will need to help the future Member States to establish suitable structures as swiftly as possible.

With regard to the second point, entitled ‘Stability and security’, the terrorist threat hangs over the Union. We therefore welcome the measures proposed in order to combat this scourge. Combating terrorism is one factor in a broader objective, that of ensuring that the Union is safe and secure. We also welcome the Commission’s commitment to move forward in creating an area of freedom, security and justice, within which the rights of the individual will be protected, whether in terms of civil protection, food and industrial safety, transport, energy or land use planning, in order to take into consideration all the factors affecting public health and the environment. With regard, more particularly, to establishing a European Public Prosecutor, we believe it is appropriate to await the Convention’s conclusions on the subject before taking any initiatives. Ensuring stability and security within the Union also means defining and setting up an integrated border-control system and taking coordinated practical action to combat illegal immigration. We would also ask the Commission to present proposals in the near future on asylum and immigration policy that clearly distinguish between asylum seekers, those requesting international protection and migrant workers. On this subject, our group is still concerned about what we perceive as a lack of resolve within the Council. It is also important to monitor the actions of the European Union and the Member States regularly with regard to the International Criminal Court.

On the third point, entitled ‘Sustainable and inclusive economy’, if we want to prevent the deterioration in the economic environment from having a negative impact on employment, it would be desirable for the Commission to be able to inform us of proposals for a more flexible working market, which is essential for increasing employment opportunities. We appreciate the Commission’s firm stance over the Stability and Growth Pact, but, on the other hand, we consider it lacking in other areas. It is regrettable that the Commission programme makes no mention of the fiscal package and that no progress has been made in the field of VAT with regard to the principle of country of origin. In particular, we would invite the Commission to go further in considering the harmonisation of the basis for taxation, wherever this is necessary for the proper functioning of the single market, while not proposing a measure aimed solely at harmonising rates. The European Union’s fiscal policy must, in all cases, be aimed at reducing general taxation and lowering administrative costs. Economic development is also achieved through strengthening infrastructures, in particular in the field of transport. We would also, following the ruling of the Court of Justice of 5 November 2002, which found eight Member States guilty of concluding ‘open sky’ agreements with the United States, call for the European Commission to present a communication on drawing up future bilateral agreements in the field of air transport as swiftly as possible. With regard to the Union’s foreign policy, we would ask the Commission to publish a Green Paper on the new borders of the enlarged European Union, supplemented by ideas on relations with the new neighbouring States and the various partners. It is regrettable that the Commission legislative programme makes no reference to either the creation of a Euromed free trade area, or the creation of a Euromed parliamentary assembly. Within the context of post-Doha discussions, we would ask the Commission how it hopes to be able to integrate the commitment of Europe, no longer of fifteen, but of twenty-five States. Lastly, trans-Atlantic dialogue must be strengthened in a spirit of sustainable and inclusive development and must of course make good the Kyoto commitments. We are pleased that the proposal puts forward seven strategies as indicated in the Sixth Environment Action Programme, as well as proposals concerning integrated product policy and a new chemicals strategy.

In conclusion, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe it is important to begin to reform employee status, make OLAF more independent and publish declarations of the financial interests of commissioners and directors-general on the Internet. I am sure, Mr President, that in this way we will be able to avoid an exponential increase in measures, duplicated criteria as well as– and I shall end here – excessive transposition work, in order to ensure the best possible future for the enlargement of the Union.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTIN
Vice-President

  Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, we are getting increasingly close to what we asked for at the beginning of the legislature, that is, an annual political programme presented to Parliament with the participation of the Council – and I hope that Minister Haarder’s presence here is not superfluous and that he can also participate by responding to our comments, in line with visibility, transparency and democratic control. In this context, Mr President, please allow me to refer to a phrase that is in the programme – and which I believe is an error by the ‘hack’ who wrote it – which states that the programme provides the Commission’s input to the Council’s annual working programme. Could the President of the Commission clarify for us what this sentence means? Because what we believe is that Parliament is not taken into account and the Commission is reduced to the role of secretariat of the Council, and we disagree entirely with this kind of approach.

I am going to focus on the three great priorities mentioned by the President and I will leave it to other Members to deal with specific aspects.

With regard to enlargement, we spoke about this yesterday. Within the Community acquis, we attach great importance to the strengthening of the social dimension in the candidate countries, except in relation to the areas in which we believe the Commission should make more effort. And, apart from holding discussions – the final phase of the negotiations is yet to take place – there are certain issues which we should remember. For example, we are struck by the fact that in the report of the Court of Auditors this year it says that in the SAPAR pre-accession programme, only one million euros has been spent, which is 0.1%. We are always discussing quantities, but we must look at how they are spent and invested. We must debate this issue not only with the Commission, but also with our friends and, I hope very soon, neighbours, in the candidate countries.

Secondly, with regard to the economic issue, which is absolutely central, we can see that the spirit of Lisbon and Gothenburg are still alive within the Commission. However, we must recognise that recent events have demonstrated that we are not playing a central role in terms of economic growth and, above all, there is a concern that economic governance is not being strengthened – and we will have to see what is happening in the Convention’s working group. In the long term, a monetary union which is not consolidated by an economic union and a political union is not viable; history has taught us this and we must take it very much into account in order to move forward.

A final point on the economic and social priorities. As well as sustainable development, you, in relation to the framework directive on services of general interest, which was agreed in Barcelona, are proposing a Green Paper. We prefer a framework directive.

With regard to stability and security, apart from the priority of terrorism, which is absolutely universal, the Swedish Presidency proposed a consideration of the demographic future of Europe. This should be linked to the issue of immigration. We welcome the fact – and in particular I am referring to the Members on the Right of the House – that you defend the role of legal immigration in relation to our welfare societies and our demographic future, but, in any event – and I am addressing the Council – I believe it would be very positive if there were a more active approach.

With regard to the debate on the borders of Europe, you have spoken of the spirit and soul – I believe in lay terms – for all Europeans. Our former colleague, Mrs Palacio, Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, said that Europe is not a Christian club. I welcome this comment, which I believe is absolutely correct. In any event – also in relation to the Convention – it is important that we find formulae for qualified association.

Please allow me to comment on the elements missing from the programme. The status of political parties is not included as a priority. Now that the Treaty of Nice has been approved, it is essential to make rapid progress in this regard in order to consolidate a fundamental element of European democracy. The Commission had already made a transitional proposal, even beforehand. Secondly, we are going to vote on a resolution – I believe with a large majority in this House – relating to freedom of expression and media concentration. In this regard, we would welcome a more dynamic attitude on the part of the Commission.

Finally, and I will end here, Mr President, there is an issue which worries us very much: the agreements of the General Affairs Council last Monday. We have noted, from what we have been told and from leaks, that the President of the Commission is concerned to find a final date for the mandate of this Commission. I always thought that you would be a Commission that would be operational from the day of the elections. In any event, this is a constitutional issue. We are opposed to the General Affairs Council, without having debated the issue with Parliament and without you having presented it, taking a unilateral decision containing many elements which clearly clash with the Treaties. We therefore ask – and I address this to you, Mr President, so that it may be communicated to the President of Parliament – that the proposal for an interinstitutional agreement on this important issue be raised by the President in Copenhagen and I would like to hear an explanation today by both the President of the Commission and the Council.

(Applause)

  Clegg (ELDR). – Mr President, the ELDR Group has always been quite critical in the past of the somewhat incoherent and arbitrary nature of previous annual programmes. We have always looked for two things in this programme: firstly, a clear idea of the political direction reflected in the strategic choices taken by the European Commission, and secondly, a political debate between the institutions themselves. There has certainly been some progress on those two counts this year, compared to previous years. We wish to thank the Commission for keeping to the format and timetable of the new arrangements and certainly thank the college for being present in such great numbers here today. However, as President Prodi himself said, there is still some room for improvement.

The ELDR Group would like to highlight three areas where we feel there should be further improvement. The European Commission aspires to be an EU government of sorts. Good governments make strategic choices. They set political priorities. That importantly means they explain what they are not going to do as well as what they are going to do. The concern we have is that, even in this improved document, the three priorities are so broad and open-ended that they do not really represent any meaningful political choice. This is reflected in the annexes. The annex covering the actions undertaken under the three priorities run to around 40 pages. More worryingly, the annex covering the issues which fall outside the priorities runs to 50 pages. In other words, we are faced with the prospect that the majority of the initiatives undertaken on the basis of this annual programme next year will actually fall outside the political orientation set in the annual programme altogether. That is simply not the way to proceed. Once again this resorts to a sort of laundry list approach to legislative initiative and we as a group would like to see a much greater display of choice and political orientation as regards what the European Commission proposes to do from one year to the next.

The second point is the level of detail provided for each proposed legislative action. This has certainly improved compared with previous years but that was not difficult. It is still not sufficient and I would like to draw the Commission's attention to the fact that in the Convention there are proposals being floated to involve national parliaments in this debate in future. This annex is almost incomprehensible to MEPs so it would be utterly incomprehensible to MPs in national parliaments. It needs to be explained in clear, cogent, simple prose so that it is comprehensible to people living in the world that exists outside the institutions.

Finally, the third point is our strong support for the Commission's stated intention of applying impact assessments to a number of pilot initiatives. We feel impact assessments are absolutely indispensable to improve the quality of European legislation but we would like to take it a step further in two important respects. Firstly, we do not feel that in the long run the Commission can be judge and jury on its own impact assessments – assessing its own draft proposals. We feel this should be done independently. Secondly, there is little point in the Commission conducting its impact assessments if parliamentary and Council amendments then escape impact assessments altogether. Therefore we would like to see an interinstitutional approach which applies impact assessments at all points of the legislative cycle.

  Boudjenah (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, the three political priorities of your programme can only be assessed in light of the challenges faced by the European Union. It should, however, and I shall say this from the start, be noted that the ultra-liberal criteria that continue to affect European integration prevent us from rising to meet these challenges.

The Commission thus proposes, and I quote, to ‘re-engage citizens in the European project’. I will believe that when I see it! The abyss is in fact deepening between European integration as it is and the peoples’ expectations, as expressed in particular at the European Social Forum in Florence, where hundreds of thousands of people were united in a powerful anti-war, pro-peace demonstration. The Union, however, continues to implement a security and defence policy based on the military option and alliance with NATO, instead of working towards conflict prevention. Numerous discussions, debates and demonstrations in Florence called for public services to be safeguarded, so that water, health and education might become common assets. A petition against liberalising services under the WTO, within the framework of the GATS has already been signed by 127 European and national MPs.

The Commission, on the other hand, in accordance with the Barcelona and Lisbon European Councils, is pursuing and speeding up the liberalisation and deregulation process leading to privatisation in the energy, transport, postal and other sectors. It is maintaining the restrictions on public spending under the Stability and Growth Pact, even though it has been recognised at the highest level that the Pact is not as intangible as it seems.

After Florence, French rail workers will take to the streets again on 26 November. In Florence, young people declared themselves in favour of a fraternal, inclusive Europe that is open to the world. The Commission programme makes fortress Europe even more impenetrable. This effective border control, however, is entirely illusory and distances us further from the inclusive Europe you spoke of yesterday morning, Mr Prodi.

Common asylum and immigration policies must not be dependent on combating terrorism, an approach that would consider anything foreign to be potentially dangerous and criminalise all migrants or would view them as nothing more than economic resource.

On the other hand, the road to equal rights could lead to a safe, inclusive European Union. By equal rights, I mean economic, social and political rights equally: granting foreign residents the right to vote as of the next European elections in 2004, as Commissioner Vitorino advocated before one of the Convention’s working groups, would send a strong signal in this regard for a generous, fraternal Europe that is open to the world.

There is certainly an urgent need to define the future of Europe, but I do not believe we should define it in the same way as the Commission’s design and project. Must we confine ourselves to the Convention’s limited ideas concerning the institutions and rhetoric on the social dimension, must we place our trust fully in the Convention, as you said, Mr Prodi? It is not enough simply to announce that citizens are to be involved. We need to respond to their needs and hopes and fully recognise their rights, with regard to work, health, housing, education and culture, and in order to do so, we must certainly go back to the drawing board and rethink the most basic principles of the Maastricht Treaty, as it imposes a dogma of competition and a free market. We must challenge the Stability and Growth Pact and take account of the new criteria of growth, employment and training and review the responsibilities of the European Central Bank. The ruling on liberalisation and deregulation must be promulgated, public services must be recognised in the Treaty, and not only as a derogation to competition.

Lastly, Mr Prodi, you spoke of the great hopes that exist in the South. I share this ambition for the European Union to play a new role in the world, to prevent conflicts, to encourage peace and genuine security. The Union should play a part in international negotiations, in particular within the WTO, and espouse concerns over genuine development in the poorest countries. In this regard, confining ourselves to the limited Monterrey commitments or the HIPC initiative is feeble, when what we should be doing instead is cancelling all the debts of the Southern countries.

Lastly, although the Commission has stated its ambition to play a part in resolving the Middle East conflict, I would like to see more political initiatives being taken instead of just words, particularly in the spirit of Mr Patten’s regular position statements.

  Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, President Prodi has described three fundamental points of the programme and, in general, I support the overall line taken.

As representative of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I do, however, feel that we should be basing our assessment of this legislative programme on the agenda for sustainable development, outside as well as within the European Union. I am afraid to say, President Prodi, that your programme is rather vague on this point, not to say slightly rhetorical. We hope that, this time, the Commission’s report on sustainable development, due to be presented at the Spring Summit, will not arrive at the last minute. Equally, we hope that, as part of the follow up to Johannesburg, it might be possible to publish the annual report on the partnership initiatives on water and energy which, as you are aware, are part of what are known as the type two agreements concluded at Johannesburg, in due time.

The legislative programme mentions the importance of the success of the Cancún meeting. However, we feel that the European Parliament must be involved in the debate on what the Commission is going to do and say in Cancún. We really do not want a repeat of the absolutely disgraceful situation at Johannesburg, where we were faced with a fait accompli, an agreement already concluded between the Commission – or perhaps the Commissioner responsible, for that mystery has yet to be cleared up – and the United States, that WTO rules should take precedence over international agreements in environmental matters. This venture was partly foiled at Johannesburg, but we genuinely fear that something similar might happen at Cancún, without any public debate and going completely against the endeavours the Commission itself is making in the area of the environment.

As regards the external dimension of sustainable development, I would also point out that, although it is true that impact and sustainability assessments are now necessary for all international agreements – and this is a positive innovation which we very much welcome and with which we are very satisfied – it is also true that it is difficult to realise this undertaking, not least because of a certain lack of resources, as is shown by the work carried out on the agreement with Chile, work which was, I regret to say, inaccurate and rushed.

We are looking forward with great interest, Mr President, to the Commission’s Green Paper on services of general interest, and it is our genuine hope that it will be possible to discuss it here in Parliament too, Chairman Barón Crespo. Moreover, we hope that it will be possible to produce a directive on the matter as well, not least in that we fear that there might be some inconsistency – as I said just now – between what the Commission says and does in the Union and what it then proceeds to negotiate at international level, particularly within the WTO, which is now extremely powerful.

In addition, in this International Year of Mountains, President Prodi, knowing your passion for mountains, we would like to know what measures the Commission intends to adopt for the practical implementation of the Alps Convention, particularly the protocol on transport.

Another environmental issue which we feel needs attention but which I am afraid is no longer part of the programme is PVC, a material which is recognised to be highly dangerous by at least five Commission ongoing studies. We were expecting a communication before the end of the summer but it appears that, after Commissioner Liikanen announced his position, all the work was stopped. I am citing this example, although it may seem a minor issue, because, although it is true that we are working constructively to improve the legislative programme, it is also true that our discussions do not serve much purpose if we then lose sight of major legislative proposals, firmly supported by Parliament, which appear as part of the programme for years and then suddenly disappear.

I will end, Mr President, by expressing our deep concern at the influence of industrial lobbies on the Commission’s choice of legislative instrument, which may even not be a proper legislative instrument, and I would also point out that this issue is a very specific part of the interinstitutional agreement which, together with other Members of Parliament, we are trying to conclude before the Copenhagen European Council.

  Poli Bortone (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, President of the Commission, I would like to start by apologising to President Prodi for the improvised nature of this speech, which will be a series of brief reflections on what I have read or heard.

Clearly, over and above the indications given in the work programme for 2003, we cannot expect the Commission to do everything immediately and, ideally, properly, in the space of just one year, but it is right that guidelines should be laid down, as has been done. I feel that, at least in general terms, these guidelines are sufficiently acceptable.

I listened to your speech, President Prodi, and I very much appreciated some of the points which you stressed with your usual enthusiasm, particularly the social considerations, which are very relevant at a time when we are discussing security, solidarity and measures which could even include a new direction for the world of work.

Therefore, if I may, I would like to call upon the Commission and the Community institutions in general to reflect either formally or informally on a number of policies which I believe are of vital importance for the future of Europe, particularly for the future of an enlarged Europe which is genuinely united as regards its fundamental principles.

Well then, yesterday, we held lengthy formal and informal discussions with many members of parliaments whose countries are aspiring, if I may use that expression, to become a full members of Europe, and, together, we discussed our desire to work towards achieving a Europe which is genuinely, essentially and, ideally, politically united. However, in order to be politically united and cohesive, Europe needs to address issues of momentous historical importance transparently.

Mr President, I believe we need to reflect very deeply on the issue of immigration. There can never be enough discussion of the subject of legal immigration, just as there can never be enough discussion on the integration of immigrants. I often reflect – and I still do not know the answer – on the problem of integrating immigrants into society, and I sometimes wonder whether integration is not another, new form of oppression of cultures which are different from ours and should therefore be fully respected.

One of the speakers mentioned the subject of an interesting debate just now, which took place both in Florence and in my own town, Lecce, a town where we have to have no fear of dialogue or the presence of people who do not think in the same way as we do. Here, too, we must listen to what is being said about globalisation, about new forms of poverty which genuinely exist, on north and south, east and west. We must reflect still more – I reiterate – on the way we may, to some extent, be oppressing immigrant or emigrant peoples which, I imagine, would like to return to their homelands and regain their identities and their cultural roots, but which certainly do not want to go back to economic poverty. Therefore, if we have to take economic measures, it is essential that we ensure that these do not lead to the oppression of cultures.

With regard to this, therefore, I would like to draw the attention of the Commission to the issues of immigration and employment, in order to avoid employment, rather than being a uniting factor, becoming grounds for fresh dispute between the immigrants in our States and those who need to convert their business activities. Consider the industrial crisis in our country, President Prodi, and the resulting need to retrain the work force through substantial, genuinely incisive, large-scale training measures. Training is also something which depends on culture, and it must be promoted if it is true that Europe wants to continue to grow, as you maintain.

  Blokland (EDD). (NL) Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Dutch delegation in the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities. The European Commission’s three main priorities are a logical choice for its work programme for 2003. Preparation for enlargement is a top priority that is rightly seen by the European Commission as an exercise in managing the diversity of cultures, administrative traditions and economic structures. Likewise stability and security as a second priority receive my unqualified support. Fighting terrorism, management of the new external borders and control of illegal immigration are very important for both the current and the enlarged Union.

Now however I should like to take a closer look at the third priority: sustainable development. While I am of course pleased that sustainable development remains a priority for the European Commission, there is more to it than that. It is solemnly promised that special attention will be paid to the impact of new legislation on the environment. In Annex 2 however I see that the main focus of attention is on completion of the internal market. I am of course curious about the announcement of the inclusion of the environment in EU legislation. I am also concerned about the status of this document. There is a great danger that it will again end up as a discussion document, resulting in fine words and intentions but not meaning anything concrete in terms of legislation. There is certainly plenty of scope for improvement in the energy and transport fields. I do not in fact see many initiatives in the area of environmental legislation. Perhaps this is not injudicious in the light of the problems with the implementation and enforcement of existing environmental legislation. It may also well be that over the next few years we shall no longer be able to develop more far-reaching legislation in a Union of 25 members.

I have often pressed for a proposal to review the Batteries Directive. I know that work on this review has been going on for years, but reaching agreement internally is impossible. It is high time that the proposed amendment was sent to Parliament and the Council. I should like to hold you to the promise of March 2003.

  Berthu (NI). – (FR) Mr President, the Commission work programme for 2003 is better presented than in the past. It is clearly based around important priorities and that is a point in its favour. The form, however, is still highly ambiguous. We are told that this programme will contribute to the Council’s annual operational programme for 2003, which the Council is due to subsequently adopt in December. But what is the exact status of the Commission’s contribution? Should the Council accept it as it is or does it have the right to amend it to introduce new priorities? Only the latter hypothesis is coherent with the hierarchy of the institutions. Naturally, we have no doubt that, in practice, dialogue within the institutional triangle will make it possible to iron out this problem. It nonetheless raises an important matter of principle.

The first priority of the Commission programme is essentially to prepare for enlargement. We cannot fail to be impressed, when reading the actions to be taken in this regard, by their sheer number, which shows the scale of the Community acquis to be implemented by the candidate countries. Having listened to the representatives of these countries yesterday, having heard their reactions, we can clearly see that these countries are keen to enter the Union. They want to become part of the European family and are ready to make a great deal of effort to accomplish that. We must not, however, exhaust them with excess legislation and authority. We must have the wisdom to let them work at their own pace and accept variable geometry to a greater extent.

The programme’s second priority is entitled ‘Stability and security’ and this presents in particular measures relating to immigration. Having read the list of key initiatives several times, I must say that I did find the initiative concerning integration of legal immigrants, but I am still looking for the initiative that was supposed to cover repatriation of illegal immigrants. If it is there, it is well hidden. This quite simply shows that the Commission still has a long way to go before realising the scale of the problem we are facing today.

On the other hand, in conclusion, we would like to convey our compliments on the paragraph entitled ‘Relations with the enlarged EU’s neighbours’, which Mr Prodi emphasised earlier. These relations must indeed be redefined and in this respect the Euro-Mediterranean partnership could lead to the creation of a new community, which, it must be said, would be separate from the current one. It would be more natural for Turkey to be a part of that community rather than be part of the European Union itself.

  President. – Mr Prodi has to leave early to return to Brussels because of the weather. Therefore we shall take Mr Prodi's response to the contributions now. I understand Mrs Palacio is going to field the questions during the catch-the-eye session.

  Prodi, President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, it is not so much a question of time, rather that I have an appointment with Mr Erdogan in Brussels, which, as things stand, seems appropriate, given that the winner of the Turkish elections is visiting Brussels. I am going to meet him this afternoon, and I feel this is important precisely because I believe that we need powerful, direct dialogue on these matters. Indeed, the issues on the table are the most far-reaching, most fundamental matters, and I therefore feel it is appropriate to analyse them in some depth, as I am going to do in Brussels this afternoon, as I said.

Now, however, I want to respond to the first criticisms. I will then leave my colleagues from the Commission the task of developing the themes and exploring them in more detail. Indeed, there are a number of issues which are absolutely essential for our future action.

Mrs Grossetête mentioned our plans for the Mediterranean. I fully agree with her. I myself have on many occasions found myself in an awkward situation because of the way all the leaders of the Mediterranean countries criticise the Commission directly, accusing us of favouring Eastern Europe over them. My response has been simple: the demands of history have led us to take that road, but it is our intention, firstly, to strengthen the Barcelona policy, with whose development we are still encountering major problems, and secondly, to define the new policy which I have outlined – the ring of friends sharing everything except institutions with the Union – which, this is the point, I hope the Greek and Italian Presidencies will help to boost next year, given that we are going to have two consecutive Mediterranean presidencies in the same year. I have already discussed these matters and the Commission’s desire to fulfil its responsibilities in this area with the Greeks, and I will discuss them with the Italians subsequently too, for I feel that this is an extremely important issue. Moreover, I call upon Parliament as of now to strengthen our joint action in the field of the Mediterranean.

To return to the subject of our working methods, this is the age-old question of interinstitutional cooperation. It is a wide-ranging issue with major political implications, on which, however, there are a whole series of operational decisions to be taken, for we cannot limit ourselves to making declarations of principle. The Mediterranean policy will require us to take decisions affecting the budget and our whole way of working. I therefore feel that, as far as this matter is concerned, it is imperative that we focus primarily on interinstitutional programming.

Once again, Mrs Grossetête mentioned the need for each Commissioner to present a preliminary report to the Parliamentary committee concerned. I have no objection to this. Indeed, it could be useful, precisely because this is a new process which we need to improve. We will assess this proposal and I am sure we will take on board the sense of it. The only thing I want to avoid is the danger of fragmentation. There are a number of points at which, despite the need for in-depth analysis, we need to focus on the overall picture, specifically at the stage of the preliminary proposal at the beginning of the process and again when the final decision is taken at the end of the process. I would like these two stages to remain plenary debates. Clearly, there will be times during the debate when technical, specific points need to be discussed – we have no objection to that – but the beginning and end of the debate are a matter for all of us, not just some of us.

Mr Barón Crespo, first of all, the proposal on the Commission’s programme is usually determined by the relationship between the Commission and Parliament, which is extremely delicate. I would point out that the Commission’s programme for 2003 focuses on new initiatives whereas the Council’s programme, with very few exceptions, deals with initiatives which have already been presented by the Commission but which have not been adopted. In this sense, it is on our relationship with the Council that we need to focus, for we now have a backlog of issues which Parliament has already dealt with. Of course, the Commission fully supports the European Parliament – we have been consistent in our support – ensuring that the Council involves Parliament on all the points of its programme. Moreover, the Commission defines the political priorities for the Council, and it has already presented them to the General Affairs Council of 18 November. In this regard, we should have a close relationship with the Greek Presidency too.

As regards the point raised by Mr Barón Crespo concerning the political parties’ statute, we will present the new proposal as soon as it enters into force. We are in full agreement with you as regards its importance, but we are just waiting for the right moment to present the proposal, which must be discussed by everybody together.

As regards the interinstitutional resolutions for 2004, I feel that what Mr Barón Crespo said is extremely important, and I fully agree with him. The Commission has constantly drawn the presidency’s attention to the need to find solutions which will not upset the smooth functioning of the institutions. An agreement with Parliament is clearly necessary. When it became clear that there was a sort of legislative traffic jam, the Commission immediately made it clear that there needs to be coordination between Parliament’s rhythm of work and the rhythm of work of the Commission. We immediately stressed that the new Parliament must work in tandem with the new Commission right from the start. As I see it, these decisions are highly necessary, but we are short of time because solutions have to be found before Copenhagen. I think we could discuss this proposal at the interinstitutional summit at the end of November/beginning of December with a view precisely to achieving an agreement before Copenhagen. I must stress the vital importance of this matter because what we have to avoid is a scenario in which we have the new Parliament, a Commission that will only be in office for three months and then a new Commission, with all the organs changing and, as a result, a complete breakdown in some areas of the system. We are extremely concerned about this.

I fully share Mrs Frassoni’s concerns regarding sustainable development, about which Commissioner Wallström is going to speak later on. Commissioner Nielson is going to talk about Johannesburg and Vice-President de Palacio is going to talk about transport. I would point out that our position at Johannesburg was very strong but also very uncomfortable. I am not ashamed to say that the countries of the Developing World, the African countries particularly in this case – indeed, Africa is the real major problem – are tending to make less and less of a distinction between Europe, the United States and other countries. This is something which should concern us all. Despite the fact that, in recent years, we have been acting in a genuinely responsible manner – consider Kyoto, the Everything but Arms initiative, incisive decisions opening up our markets unilaterally, incisive decisions regarding the Kyoto Protocol, incisive decisions on many aspects of development aid, for example in Monterrey, where it was we who obtained the minimum that could be obtained as regards foreign aid, even though it really was an absolute minimum – we must not be surprised if the developing world reacts by lumping us all together without distinction. This is a matter of great concern which requires very thorough analysis on our part. This is the way we must approach the issue.

A further concern, expressed by Mrs Boudjenah, relates to the interpretation of peace and development issues overall, as a matter for general concern. I agree – as I said before – with this too. As regards matters such as the pluralism of the world and multilateralism, it is even more important that we adopt a role of absolute leadership because there is no one else who can keep these debates open, and we know how valuable they are at this time.

It must also be said, quite frankly, that these are debates which can be kept open in a credible manner if there is a financial commitment, and that is very difficult to fulfil at this time. I therefore believe that we genuinely ought to open an in-depth political debate on this because, clearly, if we do not engage sufficient resources, we will be merely moralising to these countries rather than capable of changing the situation in the world. I would stress: we have done a great deal and we have played an exemplary role. We must continue to do so but we must improve both the quality and quantity of our efforts.

This brings me to the last part of Mrs Poli Bortone’s speech, which concerned immigration. It is true that we need to focus on legal as well as illegal immigration, it is true that the issue of integrating immigrants is something that needs to be discussed, but, first and foremost, there is the major issue to be resolved of whether or not integration is taking place. I have to say, however, that, for the most part, the immigrants who come to Europe are increasingly stable, increasingly willing to become integrated into the societies of our European countries, wherever they come from, and they become integrated more easily and to a greater degree in some cases than in others. I do, in any case, believe that, for the sake of the future cohesion of our societies, we must make a huge effort to facilitate integration as a priority.

I would stress that it is an issue whose facets and characteristics vary greatly according to the country of origin and reception, but the risk of our societies becoming fragmented is a risk we cannot take.

It has been a very powerful personal experience for me to visit different communities of Italian immigrants in Germany and Belgium over the years. Wherever I have seen that total integration has taken place, I have realised that this was the only way for them to live happy, serene lives on an equal footing with their fellow citizens. Total integration is, in my opinion, a major objective for an open society, and it must take place in full respect for all cultures, in full respect for diversities, with a view to achieving societies which are not afflicted by conflict or tensions. Clearly, this means that we need an immigration policy which is much more complex and much more cohesive than that we have been working on hitherto.

  President. – We now move on to the catch-the-eye procedure.

  Karamanou (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, which I have the honour of chairing, welcomes the Commission's initiative to introduce a more compact and integrated political planning procedure.

The Committee on Women's Rights had an opportunity for constructive dialogue with two Commissioners, Mrs Anna Diamantopoulou and Mr Antonio Vitorino. We had a most productive discussion, during which our opinions and positions converged on numerous points. In the light of that positive experience, I was surprised – and I wondered why – I was unable to find a single word on gender equality in the Commission programme for 2003. Mrs Diamantopoulou assured us at a meeting with our committee at the beginning of October that gender equality policy was a Commission priority and we have heard nothing to make us think otherwise. As you know, the Committee on Women's Rights has the exclusive privilege of being invited once a year to a one-day meeting with the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, and ten Commissioners, in order to discuss the specific issue of gender equality.

2003 is an important year for the Committee on Women's Rights. The top priority is the Convention on the future of Europe and we have invested a great deal of time and effort in order to ensure that the new Treaty promotes gender equality. Secondly, we need the acquis communautaire on women to be applied, not just adopted by the candidate countries. Τhirdly, there is the question of gender mainstreaming and, of course, we still have a great deal to do to put our own house in order here. In all events, I welcome the initiative to put the Commission's annual progress report on sexual equality on the agenda for the spring summit under the Greek presidency.

Another important priority is to ensure there is a balanced representation of the sexes at the 2004 European Parliament elections. The European Parliament and the Commission should set a standard for the other institutions. Finally, I am worried and concerned about the fact that the proposal for a new directive on combating sexual discrimination on the basis of Article 13 of the Treaty keeps being postponed. Have we any news on this?

  de Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, equal opportunities for women is a constant and permanent priority within Community action. I do not know whether the chairman of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities believes that they are not sufficiently covered in the texts. It is possible, but I would like to say that they are present as a matter of course, because it is our obligation and that is what we all want.

With regard to some of your ideas on the question of mathematical equality in women’s representation in the different bodies, I would like to say clearly that this does not appear in our programme. In this respect, I would remind the chairman – who furthermore is Greek – of the famous myth of Procrustes.

  Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment.

I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission's work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?

  President. – As there are a lot of requests for the floor, in order to speed things up we will hear from the Commission at the very end rather than after every contribution.

  Goebbels (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, in 2003, the Commission’s work programme, and even the political work of the entire Union, will be heavily dependent on the world economic environment. For now, there is no reason to be optimistic. According to the Commission, the indicators continue to point to an acceleration in growth at the end of 2002. This acceleration, however, will not exceed 1%, which means, and I quote, that a rate of growth of around 3% therefore seems impossible to achieve for 2003.

The risk of a stock market crash, the impact of terrorism and the threat of war have significantly marked the world economy. We could adopt a dogmatic stance in response to this situation, superstitiously chanting ‘stability, stability’. We could also aim for a more pragmatic economic policy by giving growth a boost. That is what the US Government has done, injecting more than USD 100 billion into the economy in one year. That is what the Federal Reserve has done through its policy of lowering interest rates.

For us, as socialists, stability is important. We must fight against public debt and for a balanced budget. The right has attacked the German Government for this, pretending to forget that right-wing governments in Portugal, Italy and in particular France, are moving ever further from the stability policy. The socialists, however, advocate a proactive policy in favour of growth and employment, because in politics chanting has never produced results. Now is the time to relaunch trans-European networks and use all available appropriations to foster productive investment, research and the knowledge-based economy. It is truly scandalous to see that the Commission was incapable of using all the available appropriations in 2001. Even though the Union budget is just 1% of the Community gross domestic product, 16% of these scant appropriations were unused, in other words, saved.

Mr President, I shall end by saying that the Union set itself an ambitious strategy at the Lisbon Summit, and we must provide ourselves with the means to fulfil that ambition.

  Bouwman (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, Commission, Council, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I intend sounding a somewhat negative note about the Commission’s work programme and legislative proposals. We have to establish that against the background of the Lisbon process, against the background of a growing demand for labour participation, against the background of requests for flexibility in the labour market and against the background of labour mobility in Europe, the Commission’s programme, and in particular its legislative programme, is lacking in ambition as far as we are concerned, and that we think is a pity.

2003 threatens to be a lost year in this regard, certainly if we look at the legislation. There are only three proposals that go in the right direction. They are concerned with equal treatment, which has already been mentioned, the normal guidelines for employment and social security 140871. They are not new legislative proposals, though; they are amendments. We also note that delays are occurring in a number of areas or there is even the odd omission, as is the case with the European works council, which is not on the agenda for next year or perhaps only at the end of it. There is also a lack of initiative in the fields of parental leave, the protection of women workers, the disabled and atypical work, and I could go on.

As a committee we have to note that on the legislative side the programme is not really satisfactory when it comes to the demands that are made by society and that are also socially based. We have already spent some time discussing this in our committee and with our Commissioner. We also believe that the problem does not lie with the Commissioner alone, but also and in particular with the Commission as such and with the Council. We therefore ask the Council in particular to take steps on the occasion of the forthcoming mid-term review of the social agenda.

We must prepare this with the Commission and I hope that we can then make progress. At the moment there is really no chance of this happening and we are disappointed to a certain extent. But we live in hope and that is why we are asking that these steps be taken.

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) I wish you long life and good health, Vice-President Martin, long life and good health to all the Commissioners, long life and good health to all the Members of the European Parliament and long life and good health to the Council representative too, although I know that the Council – the 15 Heads of Government – is very concerned to learn that the European citizens are living longer. I read in a wide range of newspapers this morning that a pill has been discovered that may well enable us to live to the age of 150.

While I was on my way to Parliament, I remembered what it was I had to ask the Commission. While I have always been aware that Europe is now beginning to concern itself with pensions – and I have to say that last year’s Commission rightly addressed the issue with particular enthusiasm, with, I believe, the support of the Commissioner responsible, Mrs Anna Diamantopoulou – even though the area is still the responsibility of the Member States, I have noticed that many governments, including, not least, the government governing me, Carlo Fatuzzo, too, are making statements which will lead the European citizens to believe that it is Europe which is going to cut their pensions, that it is Europe that is going to reduce their pension income, that it is Europe that is going to force them to tighten their belts. However, it is they, the national governments, which have to take these decisions, and if they are going to be forced to cut pension payments, then they must make that clear openly, frankly and honestly to their citizens.

I would therefore ask you, Commission Vice-President, what the Commission intends to do to make the European citizens aware that Commissioner Diamantopoulou is not a fairy or a sorceress who is able to grant wealth to all the citizens but an evil ogre who is doing what the national governments tell her to.

  Procacci (ELDR). – (IT) Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, I would like to focus essentially on section 1 of the Commission communication. The Commission has now achieved the major objectives established at the beginning of its term of office – enlargement and the reforms – but I feel that, in the final stage of its term of office, it must do more than just manage and implement what has already been achieved. I feel that the paragraphs entitled ‘Defining the future of Europe’ and ‘Relations with the enlarged EU’s neighbours’ are the key to the realisation that we need to start laying the foundations for the Union’s future political outlook as of now.

After the accession we hope for of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, we must turn our gaze resolutely in three directions: towards Eastern Europe, the Western Balkans and the Mediterranean. I welcome the openness displayed in the sentence ‘…the Stabilisation and Association process opens perspectives for membership’. I therefore agree with what President Prodi said: we must develop a ring of friends stretching from Russia to Morocco, without excluding the possibility of them acceding to the Union under the same conditions as the other countries which have already become part of it.

This opens horizons for the future which will extend our project even beyond the geographical confines of our continent. While we are preparing to launch the widest and, perhaps, most important enlargement of the Union, we need to be aware of these possibilities. In any case, when Russia accedes to the Union – however far in the future – we will not be able to stipulate that only the part on this side of the Urals can do so, and that will bring great changes, particularly in the way the Union defines itself.

We must therefore see the Union as a ring of concentric circles which are interconnected. This is the way for Europe to continue to keep its soul alive. The day when Europe ceases to concern itself with the countries beyond its borders will be the day when it loses part of its basic raison d’être.

  van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, I have a few specific questions about development policy for the Commission. You have said that we want faster spending because far too much remains unspent at the moment. In practice however this is still not happening. My specific question to you is: what new steps will you be taking to achieve this in your work programme for 2003? You have also said that we must spend better, we want to move towards basic social spending such as education. You have accepted a figure of 35%, you have reached an average of 28%. What specific steps will you be taking to achieve this in your programme for 2003?

Thirdly, in Doha you took on the obligation to table proposals for the reduction of the agricultural subsidies and their conversion into rural subsidies before March 2003. When can we expect these concrete proposals in the area of agriculture, as a supplement to the Fischler package?

Fourthly, you promised to bring forward a supplement to the regulation of the gap between structural aid and emergency aid. This gap, the famous grey zone, is sometimes giving rise to one or two years’ delay. When can we expect to see this specific regulation?

Fifthly, and in conclusion, in the context of migration policy – and Mr Prodi also made reference to this – you said that there is a need to conclude new partnership agreements with developing countries. The specific question is: what initiatives will you be presenting in this area in addition to the Cotonou Treaty that will actually do something about a regulated migration policy which – and let us start with North Africa and a number of the suppliers from the different regions – actually involves the relationship with the developing countries?

  Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, we have the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe, but I should like to remind Mr Prodi, the Commission, and the other ladies and gentlemen here, that we also have Northern Europe and the Northern Dimension, and I would ask them to take this into consideration also.

At present we seem to have all our attention on enlargement, but we must fight tooth and nail to hold on to the Lisbon objectives. Enlargement will place burdens on the EU economy, and that underlines the importance of having a competitive strategy to address that problem. For this reason, we must also be able to implement some difficult reforms at the same time as enlargement. We have to focus our attention on the applicant countries’ ability to implement the Lisbon objectives. In the old Member States too it is necessary to give attention to the implementation of EU legislation. When enlargement takes place we shall particularly have to avoid distortions of competition due to the uneven implementation of directives, for example, in environmental and competition policy. The liberalisation process must be speeded up substantially in the electricity, gas, telecommunications and transport sectors.

The situation at present is that consumers cannot count on economic growth. Investment is being put off and the markets are still constrained. Labour costs are high while at the same time there is considerable unemployment in Europe. Faith in the Stability and Growth Pact is being shaken.

I would ask the Commission how it intends to integrate this ambitious timetable for enlargement with improved economic competitiveness in Europe.

  Schmid, Herman (GUE/NGL). (SV) Mr President, I have a question for Commissioner Diamantopoulou regarding the European employment process and the most practical difficulty to which it gives rise, namely the problem of implementing the policy in the Member States. Most of the players in the labour markets across Europe know absolutely nothing about the European Employment Strategy. The Commission is aware of this and has started to stress the importance of implementation, which I welcome wholeheartedly. When I last heard Mrs Diamantopoulou speak to our committee, she said that there would also be further consideration of how to include the European Parliament and the national parliaments in the European employment process. I think this sounds excellent.

My question now is whether the Commission has progressed any further on this issue and has clearer ideas in this regard. If we look at each individual Member State, they all have some sort of national action plan for employment in as much as their parliaments have adopted budgets which establish which measures in the area of labour market policy have funding for the coming year. As there cannot be two separate national action plans, the national action plan which is part of, and builds on, the guidelines in the European employment process must be coordinated with each parliament’s politico-economic work on creating a national employment policy. I therefore wonder why the Commission is not clearer on this point. I know that telling Member States how to handle their decision-making processes is not an option, but making recommendations is obviously possible, not least within the framework of the open employment process.

With this now about to be introduced in the candidate countries, which have a weak administrative capacity, it is even more important to place the political responsibility for the employment process clearly on the political process and to emphasise that the national parliaments have a crucial responsibility for, and influence upon, this issue.

  Terrón i Cusí (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, the fight against terrorism has been, and must continue to be, one of our priorities, if not our main priority. There has been much progress in this field and in the field of cooperation in criminal matters and we have demonstrated that when we have political will we can be effective.

I would like to ask whether you believe that now is the time, following this success in relation to cooperation in the criminal field, to carry out the necessary improvement in judicial standards in the European Union and the defence of individual rights. And I am referring to the current Union and the enlarged Union.

I also believe – and I would like to hear the Commission’s opinion on this – that there should be some coordination initiative in the police field which would put an end to these areas of confusion, which are so difficult to explain to the citizens. I am referring to Europol and others.

I am less optimistic about immigration policy, however. There is a phrase in the work programme which I find truly extraordinary: to consolidate the immigration and asylum policy. I do not believe it is the fault of the European Commission, I am more than sure of that; but, to be frank, I think it would be very positive if we were to begin the immigration and asylum policy. Mrs Grossetête asked the Commission for more initiatives. I would ask the Commission for fewer initiatives. It has presented all the initiatives it should have presented. We have a package of proposals which make up a coherent and reasonable immigration policy. What we need to do is to begin to take decisions in this area. I believe that we should not increase the range of proposals so that the Council can just select little bits of them, but we must demonstrate political will in order to make progress in global terms.

And finally I would like to welcome the proposal for integration policies and, above all, the idea of coordinating these polices with social policy. If we believe that immigrants must enter Europe for employment purposes, we must be effective in both areas, we need an immigration policy which works, but also a labour market which works, a social policy which incorporates immigrants in order to respond to the local problems which immigration creates.

(Applause)

  Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, maritime safety is one of the challenges included in the Commission’s working programme for 2003. Unfortunately, we are currently facing the terrible accident involving the Prestige off the coast of Galicia, which makes this working principle all the more evident.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Commission, by means of its Vice-President, on its rapid reaction and its cooperation with the Spanish and Galician authorities in relation to this dramatic event. I would also like to acknowledge the Commissioner for Transport and the European Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, who have approved the Erika I and Erika II packages, which, had they already been applied, could perhaps have helped us to prevent an accident of this nature.

In this respect, I would like to point out that the Directive on the monitoring of traffic – yet to be transposed – in Article 20, lays down the definition of areas of refuge, which, although they are vague, would allow vessels with problems to reach them to try to resolve them.

We have examples such as the Erika, which was not authorised by the French authorities to enter the port of Saint Nazaire, or now the Prestige, not authorised to enter Galician ports, clearly due to the high ecological value of that coast. There should be further proposals for the creation of areas of refuge out to sea, sufficiently close so that vessels with problems can reach them and sufficiently far from coasts to prevent serious ecological problems, but which allow for immediate naval rescue actions with technical resources, both aerial and marine. And the measure, Madam Vice-President, if included in the Commission’s programme, could be applied urgently without the need to wait for transposition of the directive.

  Schörling (Verts/ALE). (SV) Mr President, my questions also relate to environmental policy. I would like to repeat the question from Mrs Frassoni on PVC and what has happened to the goals regarding PVC in this work programme, for they were included in both last year’s programme and that of the previous year, but they have now disappeared. This is exceedingly disturbing, as we are talking about an incredibly hazardous substance which we know exists in large quantities in our environment. In terms of waste, no fewer than four million tonnes of PVC waste are produced every year. Perhaps Commissioner Liikanen or Commissioner Wallström should answer the question of what has happened to the Commission’s goals on the issue of PVC.

My second question relates to the structural funds, the common agricultural policy and EU-financed programmes and plans in general. During 2003-2004, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), will enter into force in the Member States. Unfortunately, SEA does not yet cover EU-financed plans and programmes, but the Commission has promised that this must happen, something for which Parliament has expressed its support. I now want to know whether it is the case that the Commission has started to set up an internal organisation to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to implement this type of impact assessment for EU-financed plans and programmes.

My final question relates to Natura 2000. We are still waiting for a communication from the Commission, which has been delayed a number of times. Now it has been included in the programme, and I would therefore simply like to point out the importance of this communication actually being issued next year, preferably as soon as possible.

  Rovsing (PPE-DE). – (DA) Mr President, the closure of Strasbourg Airport on Monday evening, which of course held us all up for quite some time, has prompted me to put a question to the Commission on the following subject. It would be a good idea to have an overview of all the aircraft within European airspace, coordinated centrally: within Eurocontrol, for example. Obviously it is the countries themselves that are responsible for national air traffic control systems, but would it not be appropriate to have a central overview of all the current and planned flights, whether they be civil or military, in order to improve utilisation of the airspace, reduce the number of delays and lessen the impact on the environment?

  De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, while welcoming the programme presented to us today I must express some alarm that on page 12, under 'Key initiatives – sustainable and inclusive economy', the mountain has laboured and made a promise to produce a green paper on public services or services of economic interest. I find this extraordinary. This Parliament has repeatedly pointed out to the Commission and the Council over many years that there is an urgent need for a directive on a framework for services of general economic interest.

My understanding is that the spring summit instructed the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a framework for services of a general interest by the end of this year. Yet what we have in this work programme for next year is the promise of a green paper to discuss the principles on which services of general economic interest might – might – be constructed. At the same time, we have a promise on page 12 that measures to complete the internal market, by eliminating barriers to the provision and take-up of services by business and consumers, will proceed next year. I do not find this acceptable. This House and the spring summit have been ignored. All the calls this House has made for universal services of general interest to the citizens of Europe to be guaranteed as a matter of urgency have been ignored, although this is a key part of European citizenship and of the social model we are so proud of in Europe.

I would like a clear answer from the Commission as to why it is failing to do what this Parliament has asked it to do and what it was instructed to do by the Council at the spring summit, because this is not acceptable.

  Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I have two questions. The first is about securing our external borders. I very much welcome the programme and proposals with regard to enlargement, and particularly the fact that you want to have uniform responsibilities. The question is this: when do you think the new Schengen manual will be available? We will have common training programmes. When do you think this common training system will be operational?

What I would also like to request is that we should consider the compatibility of the technology being used and that we should also get Europol to carry out the proposed risk assessment as soon as possible. When do you think the system will be operating?

My second question is about migration. Our objective – and on this we agree – must be to create viable legal immigration mechanisms and prevent illegal immigration. However, the problem that arises here relates in particular to the area of asylum, where, although the Commission has made proposals, final decisions remain to be made in all areas. But we need decisions to be made quickly so that genuine refugees – who make up about 10% of applicants – can be helped swiftly and so that repatriation can be arranged for the remaining 90% that have to be rejected. Commissioner Vitorino, how do you intend to ensure that a system of this kind can finally be made operational and that we can secure Council approval?

  Roth-Behrendt (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank those of the Commissioners who, out of respect for Parliament and the debate on the work programme, have been able to spend a couple of hours with us – once a year. I admire Mrs de Palacio for answering questions across all areas of policy, including those of her colleagues who have other priorities. What I have said amounts to praise for those of her colleagues who are actually here.

Mrs de Palacio, Commissioners, I have read the work programme very carefully. It is better than what you have usually come up with. In my areas of interest at least, it is more helpful. You have integrated the concept of sustainability throughout, as we have always requested. I really get the impression that you have done your homework, that you have understood the issues and that the external presentation at least has been very well done.

‘External presentation’ and ‘internal behaviour’ are, however, two very different things. My queries relate in particular to internal behaviour. Let us consider the leftovers, that is to say the things you are carrying forward from 2002. In my field, which is environmental policy, there are some areas that Mrs Schörling and Mrs Frassoni and others have touched upon, such as policy on chemical products, PVC, the batteries directive, and various others.

If I consider why that is, I see that one of the main problem areas is that you cannot achieve any internal agreement. You have conflicts between environmental, industrial and trade policy, and there is also often conflict between consumer protection and trade policy.

If you cannot resolve these internal conflicts, if you cannot manage to demonstrate leadership and say 'OK, the Commissioner responsible has power over the inter-service procedure', then we will always find ourselves with ‘leftovers’.

That is why I am asking you, Mrs de Palacio, how you intend to resolve conflicts within the Commission in future, and whether you are willing to air these conflicts in a more open and transparent way. We can only ever guess the reasons why no proposals are presented to us. We learn them already from the grapevine and the rumour mill. We mostly seek answers in Commissioner Liikanen's areas of responsibility, sometimes, often enough in fact, we seek them in Commissioner Lamy's areas, and sometimes in Commissioner Bolkestein's areas too. I regard them as being the naughty boys. I am not referring to poor Commissioner Wallström and Commissioner Byrne, who always do their best but are sometimes pushed to one side. I expect your internal behaviour to reflect the way you present things externally. That means that you will also present the proposals that you have presented to us very quickly in future.

  Brunetta (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I was hoping to address my questions to Mr Solbes, but I do not see him in the House, and so Mrs de Palacio or Mrs Diamantopoulou may answer instead.

I should first like to make a request: please do not abuse the adjective ‘sustainable’. It is rather like those awful restaurants where they put cream or parsley on everything and in the end ruin every dish. ‘Sustainable economy’, Mrs de Palacio and Mrs Diamantopoulou, means absolutely nothing. It is just a nod towards the environmentalism of the Greens, towards the left with ‘solidarity’ and towards the right with ‘economics’. In short, a little semantic correctness would not go amiss.

Let us now deal with some rather more serious matters that I have noticed. President Prodi has spoken of a single cycle of economic policy coordination – I am referring to point 2.3, b4) – and, indeed, only a single cycle is needed because the objectives laid down in the Stability Pact and the broad economic policy guidelines must coincide with those of the real economy, in other words the labour market and, above all, welfare. You realise that the labour market and welfare are two sides of the same coin. Well, while the labour market already has an implicit coordination process – the Luxembourg process – which has been making positive headway for six or seven years now, the same is not true for the more recent (as one might say) Laeken process for coordinating welfare action, which has yet to be put into practice.

The two systems are unbalanced: much has been done in the area of close coordination on the labour market, while everything still remains to be done as regards welfare. My request is therefore that the two coordination processes be synchronised as fully as possible so that they then make it possible to fulfil not only Lisbon but the Stability Pact too.

  Titley (PSE). – Mr President, in relation to the Commission's work programme on enlargement we have, as we would expect, a very thorough and indeed a very formidable programme to achieve in the next 12 months, in which the Commission has to address a large number of areas including, in particular, monitoring the progress of the candidate countries.

Can we be assured that even when the treaties are signed there will be no winding down of DG Enlargement? That will ensure that we have the staff to carry out the monitoring process, which is still important right up to accession.

Secondly, the focus will inevitably move on to the stability of our borders, as the Commission says in its programme, but it does not say what new steps we are actually going to take. We talk about relations with Moldova, for example. Moldova is very close to being defined as a failed state. How are we actually going to deal with it and with Ukraine, with which we have still tried to have relations? In relation to Bosnia and Kosovo, are we simply going to carry on as before, or are we going to look at enhancing our work there in order to better secure our borders?

Finally, we put emphasis on the CFSP in preparing the Commission's role in that area. However, defence procurement and securing the future of European defence industries are important. To that end we have previously had action plans from the Commission on how it can use its instruments to support that process. Commissioner Liikanen keeps promising me that he will put forward a further action plan, but I see no reference to that in the annual programme. Are we going to see an action plan on future defence industries and on defence procurement, and are we going to see the Commission using the instruments it has available?

  President. – That concludes the catch-the-eye procedure.

  Daul (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the presentation of the Commission’s legislative and work programme for the year 2003 constitutes an important stage in working relations between our two institutions. In fact, the presentation of this programme today marks the end of an interinstitutional schedule of financial payments agreed between our two institutions in January 2002.

As this is the first exercise of its kind, it will clearly be possible to improve a number of points next time and I shall take the liberty of coming back to this matter at the end of my speech.

In February 2002, the Commission presented to Parliament the annual political strategy for the year 2003. On the basis of this document, a true interinstitutional dialogue took place, from April to July, between the parliamentary committees and Commissioners concerned, on the scope and implementation of political priorities in each specific field of competence. In July, within the Conference of Committee chairmen, jointly with the Vice-President of the Commission, Mrs de Palacio, we carried out an assessment of this year’s programme. Then, in September, the Conference of Committee chairmen, also in the presence of Mrs de Palacio, drew up an inventory of the various legislative proposals that the Commission intended to introduce in its legislative and work programme for next year. The document that Mr Prodi has just presented is therefore, to a great extent, the outcome of the dialogue which has taken place throughout the year.

Now, in order to conclude this process, Parliament is due to decide on a motion for a resolution on 5 December. In this regard, I would inform you that the parliamentary committees decided, at the meeting which took place the day before yesterday, to prepare, each in their own field of competence, a contribution which can be included in this motion for a resolution.

Mr President, allow me to inform the European Commission, as well as Parliament, of my positive assessment of the interinstitutional schedule of financial payments which has been established for the first time. More or less one year ago, the Commission position, as you will all recall, was practically the opposite. The establishment of this schedule of financial payments required a great deal of effort, in particular by Parliament. In this regard, I would like to highlight the remarkable work of our colleague Mrs Malmström, during negotiations with the Commission. In fact, it was possible to establish the schedule of financial payments due to the mutual trust that has been created between our two institutions with regard to legislative programming. Naturally, on the basis of this year’s experience, the various stages will be better understood and can be implemented next year. A true culture of planning and interinstitutional programming is currently developing between the European institutions, which is surely moving in the direction expected by our citizens.

In this regard, allow me to conclude my speech by recalling that at the time of the Seville Summit of 21 and 22 July this year, the European Council decided that the Council would establish a work programme. I therefore hope that the resolution upon which Parliament is to vote on 5 December will also address the Council with a view to establishing its programme for the year.

I would like to end by emphasising the importance of dialogue with the Council. I would like to thank Mr Haarder in particular, who has always been there when we needed him. I believe it is worth emphasising, Mr Haarder, because it is good to hear congratulations, too, from time to time.

Efficient legislative programming effectively means two things. First of all, transparency in terms of knowledge and citizens’ access to the legislative work that the European Union intends to undertake in the year ahead. Secondly, greater efficiency in carrying out legislative work, not forgetting that, thanks to better programming, Parliament, the Council and the Commission can inform the national parliaments and the citizens on legislative work and take full responsibility for it.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR FRIEDRICH
Vice-President

  Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioners, Madam Vice-President, I would first like to make a few observations about the key points. The first of these is the enlargement of Europe. We have already heard several times that the signals indicating the direction the Commission would like to go in here are too weak. Let us take a look at the Balkans, for example. This region in particular now feels as if it has been rather abandoned – the finance available to it has been reduced. That may be justified, but that is all the more reason to give stronger political signals offering these countries two alternatives: either the route to membership at a later stage, or some other option.

The Zagreb Summit is coming up. I do not know what the Council has in mind, but I would like to know, Madam Vice-President, what the Commission intends to propose at the Zagreb Summit, at Zagreb II that is, about what should happen in the Balkan region. Is it being specifically identified as an enlargement region once the first round of enlargement has been completed? Yes or no?

Secondly, there is the issue of stability and security. The point I am about to make has already been made, but I think it could be made more forcefully. Our security is very closely linked to our viewing other, neighbouring regions, ranging from the Balkans to the Caucasus, as partner regions with which we have appropriate treaties and where we intend to extend cooperation against cross-border crime and illegal mass migration.

On a more positive note, let us look at energy. I think we can agree on this, Commissioner. You have brought forward a raft of energy policy proposals, including proposals on energy policy in relation to nuclear safety. We are now in a position to discuss the details and I am sure that we will not always agree. I believe, however, that it is high time we regarded a coherent energy policy strategy as being part of our external policy.

What regions do we want to link more closely with Europe, especially as regards energy security policy? Let us consider the Caucasian region – or are we leaving it up to the Americans to act there? The Balkans are also involved in terms of the various pipelines that need to be developed and secured there. This combination of external policy strategy with security policy strategy and even including energy security needs to be made far stronger.

Thirdly, there is the issue of a sustainable and inclusive economy. Here I think that what is lacking is a statement about economic policy cooperation, particularly with the European Central Bank. The way this cooperation has been implemented in practice so far is by no means satisfactory. I do recognise, however, that Mr Prodi's observations about increased flexibility in relation to the stability pact are not reflected in the work programme, not directly at least. In which case I do not know why he highlighted that point, but so be it. However, the issue of how we can cooperate with the Central Bank to assume greater responsibility in terms of economic policy, and therefore also employment policy, needs to be given greater emphasis.

On page 14 there is a paragraph about services of general interest. I am amazed that the Commission should be saying again that we need to initiate a debate on this. A much-needed debate is already taking place, although unfortunately not one in which the Commission has played any really significant role. Mr Prodi's comments on this need to be taken really seriously if we are to make progress in this area, because services of general interest are an important issue not just in France but also in many of our Member States, and we need to have a clear line on this.

Lastly, I would like to make some general points about the legislative proposals. Madam Vice-President, you know that you are our partner in the debate on alternative forms of regulation. We in this House have a very great interest in seeing laws adopted more quickly and in applying the legislative process in a more flexible way, but to do that we need the cooperation of the Commission and the Council. I will say something about that in a moment.

The Commission is willing to help on a great many issues. It is perhaps a little too fearful that we want to take away its right of initiative. We do not want to do that, nor are we able to. Even if we did want to, we could not take it away from you. But that does not mean you are entering into a more productive dialogue with us. And it does not mean, above all in areas where we have delegated our legislative competence, that we have a right of call-back, because we are after all surrendering some of our competence and so we want something in return.

There is one thing that I find totally incomprehensible. I am sorry to say that and have only praise for you, Mr Haarder, for sitting here for hours and listening; I really admire that. I have in mind the very disappointing opinion adopted by the Council, by Coreper, on the issue of other forms of legislation. It is not often you see something so restrictive and backward looking. You really cannot expect Parliament to surrender legislative competence as long as you are not willing to budge an inch yourselves! You talked about comitology as if it were the holy of holies, as if it were our primary objective! That really is not acceptable. We need to have a situation in which Parliament and the Council are to some extent treated as equals. We do not want to impinge on your rights, but please respect ours!

(Applause)

  Wallis (ELDR). – Mr President, this has undoubtedly been a good debate between the institutions and 2003 will be an important year against the backdrop of enlargement. We must ensure the good functioning of the Union for our citizens present and future. That applies very much to the process of how we legislate, how we implement legislation and how we enforce legislation. The debate has been very wide-ranging debate as regards how we legislate in this process. However, I could not help thinking while listening to the many detailed questions that we have heard that perhaps more of what I and my colleagues have been dealing with could have been dealt with at an earlier stage in the Committees, to give us a more strategic debate here today.

On behalf of my group, I welcome the emphasis on impact assessments and the emphasis on involvement of our citizens and transparency. That has to be the right way forward. I would raise some concerns about the Commission's powers of enforcement in terms of infringement proceedings as we move towards enlargement. We must make sure that sufficient resources and measures are available in this respect.

The same goes for the Court. The Court has to be fully resourced in order to carry out its tasks in the difficult times that lie ahead. We have had a good debate, a good exchange, but I still am left wondering whether it has truly been the strategic debate that should have engaged all of this House and our citizens outside. We have done well but we could still do a lot better.

  Caudron (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I also cannot see how anyone could oppose the Commission’s priorities. Who could oppose the objectives of succeeding in enlargement, ensuring stability and security, firmly supporting the relaunch of the economy and employment, controlling globalisation and ensuring that the resulting benefits are redistributed as widely as possible taking account of Kyoto, Monterrey and Johannesburg, not forgetting a knowledge-based society, developing research with increased appropriations and better interaction between science and society. I must, however, admit to you my concern over the deepening abyss between the stated objectives, on the one hand, and the means implemented in order to achieve them and therefore the results that will arise from them, on the other. Moreover, in European public opinion polls, this is often what destroys the European ideal.

How can we succeed in enlargement without taking account of the diversity of the candidate countries – thereby better recognising the diversity of the current Member States – without taking sufficient account of their difficulties and needs, while at the same time we require them to succeed immediately in doing what some of the Fifteen have still not managed to do? How can we ensure security and also combat crime while limiting ourselves to a ‘Great Wall of China’ or ‘Berlin Wall’ type strategy, in other words substantially communitarising the acceptance and immigration rules in a realistic but humane way throughout the Union? How can we boost employment when free competition and the free market are detrimental to public services as a whole and when jobs are still considered a variable to be adjusted to benefit companies and when we attach more importance to financial, accounting and monetary concerns rather than to the economy and employment? How, lastly, can we control globalisation when the USA dominates the world in political and military terms and when large industrial and financial groups take care of the rest – often, moreover – under the control of the USA and large world stock exchanges? I do not know what the future holds for the Johannesburg conclusions, but I am fully aware of the way in which some have treated the Kyoto conclusions.

Before concluding, I shall ask the question that I would have liked to ask when research was mentioned: the Council has imposed a moratorium on stem cells. What will happen at the end of 2003 if the Council does not manage to reach an agreement on the ethical issues relating to these hundreds of millions of euros in appropriations?

I repeat, I share the Commission’s objectives. I cannot believe, however, that they will be achieved more successfully in 2003 than in 2002 or 2001, unless the necessary financial and political means are provided. The good qualities of the Commission and the Commissioners are not in question – the problem runs deeper than that. It is the whole problem of the European and world framework, the place of social issues, human issues and citizens. There is, in fact, a certain amount of discord among us on this point.

  Maes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Caudron has just given us his shopping list of good intentions and I have no intention of repeating it. I would just like to say that although I am happy with it, I would have preferred a more strategic debate. I, like Mrs Wallis, think that we have to set priorities and that Europe has to decide on its place and its role in the world and in the future of the world. This is really the main priority for me and for us. We must start by adapting our own institutions and asking ourselves whether our own house is in order. I would again ask for attention to be given to the place of the regions, this is becoming an important issue. So many small states will be joining the European Union, with all that entails, including their own language, their own place in the Council, in Parliament and in the Commission. The constitutional regions, the other regions too, the regions with their own language, their own culture, even with legislative and their own implementing authorities, will continue to be deprived of all this and be left behind empty-handed. I would ask whether they will then have to become a state to gain a respectable place in the European Union? That is an incitement to separatism.

Secondly, we want the full integration of the countries that are going to become the European Union with us. Should we then, however, not do more so that the populations of these countries actually become involved? I hear the complaint for example that very many people are unable to find European Union documents available in their own language. However, I want to focus more attention, because that was yesterday’s debate, on the circles of partner countries that we have to develop. I think that this debate about the expansion of this second circle is of fundamental importance if we wish to conduct the debate about the boundaries of the Union in a positive manner. Personally I do not believe that Europe should extend to the borders of Iraq, Iran and Syria, but we do have to be able to offer Turkey an attractive partnership. At the moment this is something we are really talking too little about.

Then there is our role in the world. Peace and development currently involve more than simply the follow-up to Johannesburg. As long as Europe is more part of the problem of poverty than part of the solution, then, Mr Nielsen, we have to place a big question mark by all the good things we undoubtedly do. Because we know that as long as we engage in agriculture, as long as we engage in trade as we currently do, we are more part of the problem.

  Bonde (EDD). – (DA) Mr President, if one reads the Commission’s programme of legislation carefully, one suddenly happens upon a European army: the Rapid Reaction Force. This is to be established in accordance with what has been called the ‘all-purpose article’: the famous Article 235, now Article 308, which is unchanged in the Treaty of Nice. This shows that there is no limit to the EU’s interference in the affairs of the Member States. With so many new countries due to join the EU next year, it would be better for us all to focus on consolidation and simplification of the existing legislation rather than continuing to build the Brussels legislative pyramid higher and higher. This could be done as follows: the Commission should only be permitted to put forward new proposals on condition that the corresponding old legislation is deleted in the process. All new proposals should be presented in their legal context, so that it is possible to compare proposals for new legislation with the existing legislation. No new proposals should be presented unless they are accompanied by proposals regarding the means of consolidation of the existing legislation in the field. This approach would make it possible to reduce the acquis communautaire from more than 85 000 pages to perhaps 25 000 pages.

Having accomplished this, we should strive to simplify binding legislation, transforming it into non-binding recommendations; regulations can be transformed into framework legislation, total harmonisation directives into minimum harmonisation directives, and uniform rules into voluntary rules. Attempts to create a federal state with an ever increasing amount of legislation could be replaced with a decentralised confederation of states, which would allow the Member States a great deal more freedom. This is our vision of the form the Commission’s legislative programme should take. We want a Europe of democracies based on diversity, as we believe that people will be happier if they can determine their own affairs as far as possible without interference and free from detailed rules drawn up by bureaucrats and lobbyists in Brussels.

  Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, like every year, reading the Commission’s legislative programme for 2003 is enough to make your head spin, first of all because it measures the scope of the areas of intervention in the European Union. It shows that, from reviews to reforms of the Treaties, the Member States have given up their most legitimate prerogatives to become nothing more than local municipalities of the future European super-State. The theoretical introduction of the principle of subsidiarity that you claim to want finally to take into account after ten years by no means curbs the Union’s legislative appetite. As far as the rest is concerned, we can but approve of the legitimate objectives, such as the stated desire to study the impact of Community legislation or codify existing legislation. We could even ask why this did not happen earlier.

The report also shows the underlying commitment to prepare the European Union for enlargement, and not only from the institutional point of view. Beyond agricultural and financial decisions which are far from being finalised, many allegedly technical adjustments remain to be made, as well as a general review of many policies which will only take place on conclusion of the accession negotiations.

As for the objective of participating in the Middle East peace process, how can we fail to have doubts when we learn that the day before yesterday, Great Britain participated unilaterally, together with the United States of America, in an air strike – yet another – against Iraq, the very day on which the inspectors stipulated in Resolution 1441 arrived there? I gladly admit that the Commission is not responsible for this situation.

Lastly, the document as a whole leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. The 2003 programme reveals the importance of the international servitude of the European Union, in addition to the desire to open up the Union as a whole to immigration, which is described as a source of cultural riches and economic strength, which unfortunately is in no way confirmed by the facts. Europe has no reason to exist if its union does not strengthen its members. The Europe we are now building on a constitutional and legislative level sadly does not contribute to this in any way.

  de Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, I will speak very briefly to allow other colleagues to reply in relation to the areas specific to their responsibilities.

I would firstly like to say that we are pleased to be able to hold this debate, which has been preceded by work by all the Commissioners in the committees, and which, in the end, has led to a result which we can regard as positive. In this respect, I would like to thank you, on behalf of all the Commissioners, for the input provided systematically in the debates and discussions which have taken place in the various committees in order to fine-tune our programme. When we presented our first proposals, we received initial reactions from Parliament’s relevant committees. I am therefore grateful for the work carried out. This has been an initial test whose result has not been homogenous in all the committees. I hope that next year it will work perfectly in all of them.

Secondly, in relation to enlargement, I believe that President Prodi has been very clear. There is no question that 2003 is still the main priority. We must pursue the negotiations with the countries which are going to enter in the second wave and ensure that all the changes and adaptations which the candidates entering in 2004 have committed themselves to are being implemented and carried out. This clearly requires considerable effort on the part of the candidate countries, and also of the Commission, in terms of cooperating with them in order to facilitate this work and rigorously verify that it is carried out. If it is not, mechanisms will have to be implemented in order to correct the situation.

After enlargement and with the perspectives we have, what will happen? The President has clearly pointed out that we will have to decide on issues relating to the countries of the former Yugoslavia and also that circle of countries with which we have special relations. I believe that that will be the challenge we will have to discuss, develop and monitor. But at the moment the priority – let us make this very clear – is what we have on the table: the 2004 countries and those countries, in principle, Bulgaria and Rumania, which should enter in 2007. With regard to Turkey, we are in a situation of stand-by, of waiting, simply because Turkey is yet to fulfil the political requirements for entry into the Union.

In the economic field, I will say that the Commission – this is the third priority, as the President has pointed out – will continue to implement the structural modifications necessary to promote the Lisbon project. The European Union, as the most developed knowledge-based economy, which aims for full employment, will in 2010 be the most competitive society. That is how we are going to continue to work, and, in this respect, I would point out that, with regard to the Stability Pact, we have the framework of the Treaties, which are very clear, including the Protocol, in which figures are clearly mentioned – such as the 3% of deficit and 60% of debt – and it is true that at the Barcelona Council we have been asked to work to create greater economic coordination – which was mentioned earlier, by Mr Barón for example.

The Commissioner responsible, Mr Solbes, has given us an initial presentation with regard to the approach and the timetable, and soon the relevant specific documents will be presented.

With regard to the other aspects, I will only make a couple of brief comments on issues falling within my own competence. There has been mention of the problems of legislation and the problem of commitology, ladies and gentlemen. We know that, at the moment, by means of the high-level group of interinstitutional cooperation, we are negotiating certain agreements with the Council. On this particular problem we do not have a real agreement and we are trying to find some common ground.

I believe that, in any event, there has also been progress in this field and that the progress has been made during this last year. We must continue along this road. I believe that the possibilities for improvement are favourable. In this regard, I would like to say that the Commission will continue to work with Parliament and also, of course, with the Council. In this way we will manage to find a conclusion on this issue.

With regard to resources and ambitions, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that, despite everything, the results of the development and process of European Union construction clearly indicate that our ambitions are great, but that we are achieving them. Of course, the Commission can always ask for more human resources and has done so, specifically in view of enlargement. An agreement has been reached on the minimum necessary. I can only say that we would have liked even more. If anyone insists on this area, I believe we are working with minimum resources, but that we are achieving a good result.

I will end by commenting on the specific issues that fall within my competence. There has been mention of the Single Sky and responsibility for Eurocontrol. Ladies and gentlemen, the Single Sky does not mean that flight plans are going to be decided by the Commission. Flight plans are still coordinated within Europe by Eurocontrol, not only for the Fifteen, but for all the members of Eurocontrol, of which there are now more than thirty. They are different things; the Single Sky involves another series of areas which mean the harmonisation of management rules within the European Union and compatibility of inter-operative systems, management systems, integrating them into a network. Specific execution is still in the hands of the States and global coordination in the hands of Eurocontrol.

In the other area, in Mr Ripoll’s area, I would like to say that what this Prestige tragedy – which we all regret, especially the Commission – demonstrates is that we were right. We were right to demand greater speed in the approval of measures and in the application of the measures proposed. Unfortunately, the Council, Parliament and the final agreements did not achieve much; there were more difficulties than we expected and they have been delayed. And since they have been delayed, regrettably, the Prestige accident has taken place. Let us hope that the early implementation of the 'Erika I' package – I have asked the Ministers for it to enter into force before next June – and of the 'Erika II' package, in February 2004, will prevent any further accident such as that suffered by the Prestige or by the Erika three years ago.

With regard to areas of refuge, amongst the proposals in the 'Erika I' and 'Erika II' packages, there are some which call for the different countries to determine and stipulate appropriate ports for dealing with emergency situations.

Of course, Galicia is part of 'Natura 2002'. When talking about certain things, we must bear in mind all the available information, not to mention the difficulties for some ports on that coast, which I know very well and better than certain others.

Mr President, I would ask that Mrs Diamantopoulou, Mr Nielson and Mr Vitorino may speak next, since many issues have been addressed to them.

(Applause)

  Diamantopoulou, Commission. – Mr President, first of all, as there have been many references to the presence of the Commission in this very interesting debate, I would like in turn to thank those Members of Parliament who were patient enough to stay and give definitive answers to specific questions.

(EL) I would like to comment on four sets of issues which relate to my portfolio. First, the legislative programme. Legislative proposals for 2003 are based on the Community agenda decided at the Nice summit. Other legislative proposals were made during detailed and constructive discussions with the committee in question but are not on the Community agenda. By working together, we found a way of carrying four of the proposals mentioned over to 2003, namely protection for female workers and for pregnant and nursing workers, reform of parental leave and atypical forms of work. We shall be monitoring progress on all these legislative proposals together with Parliament outside the framework of the Community agenda.

First, reform of the Community agenda and the role of parliament. It was decided in Nice that 2003 would be the year for social reform. Parliament will have a very specific role here. In January, we shall be presenting the scoreboard for the Community agenda so far which, I may add, shows that there are no delays. We shall be working with Parliament and the other Community institutions to see what additional proposals need to be included on the Community agenda in March 2003.

Secondly, sexual equality. We have clear commitments and priorities for 2003. First, all the legislation from the past twenty years is to be codified. Secondly, we have a specific legislative proposal based on Article 13. There has been a delay here, which we have discussed repeatedly with the Committee on Women's Rights, and we are counting on their help for the final presentation. We have horizontal commitments, both quantitative and qualitative, on the question of gender equality, specific targets in a whole series of policies, and we shall be presenting a report evaluating mainstreaming in policies in 2003.

Thirdly, the Employment Strategy. First, we obviously cannot force national parliaments to implement national action plans on employment. The Commission's recommendations point out that the cooperation required between governments, parliaments and the social partners in order to present national action plans on employment is lacking in almost every Member State. There are two ways forward here. One is to present and use best practices – and here the national parliaments really are playing an essential role in some countries – to bring about progress in other countries, and the other is to use the discussions taking place in the Convention to see what part national parliaments can play.

On the Employment Strategy, we shall start coordinating this strategy with the economic guidelines in 2003. This is a very important move; it will make the European Parliament's role more effective and clarify how the economic guidelines and the Employment Strategy interact, and it is accompanied by timetables that allow for serious dialogue. As far as sustainable development and employment policies are concerned, I think that what we need in the social sector, in strictly political terms, is to ensure that social repercussions are assessed in every economic and environmental decision.

Fourthly, social insurance. There were important developments here in 2002. For the first time, agreement has been reached at European level on a political framework for pension reforms. Until now, pensions have been dealt with under financial policy. We now have a framework based on three principles: viable pensions, adequate pensions and the facility to adjust pension systems. In other words, we have a more holistic approach. This is the first time the open method of cooperation has been applied to pension system reforms and we shall be presenting the first report on pension systems using this holistic approach in a few days' time. Of course, the question of social insurance is far more complex. Progress has been made on the matter of public health systems with reference to workers and a Commission communication will be submitted, again in 2003, and I should also mention the very important role of the new Committee on Social Insurance and its cooperation with Parliament.

  Vitorino, Commission. – Mr President, in addition to the answers already given by President Prodi, I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that as far as return policy is concerned, very intensive work is under way on the programme for return to Afghanistan, thanks to the commitment of the Danish Presidency. In 2003 the Commission will present a directive on minimum rules on return policy, above all in order to guarantee the mutual recognition of return decisions taken by a Member State. Such decisions should be automatically recognised and executed by the other Member States.

The Commission has recently presented a proposal for a European return programme. That is already under discussion in the Council's specialised working groups.

When it comes to integration policy, we have put forward a proposal to create some pilot projects between 2003 and 2005 in order to promote the exchange of best practices as far as integration policy is concerned. However, it has to be recognised that there is no explicit legal basis in the Treaty for dealing with integration policy at European level. Therefore we need to discuss the added value of addressing integration policy in European-wide terms.

Thirdly, as far as immigration and asylum is concerned, I can reiterate that the Commission has put forward all the proposals asked of it by the Tampere European Council and the Laeken Council. The time has now come for the Council to decide.

The only two new elements of asylum policy that we are taking into consideration are two proposals that are included in our programme for 2003. The first one concerns resettlement policy and the second protection in the region – the possibility of asking for asylum outside the territory of the European Union. These two proposals will follow very closely the consultations launched by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Thirdly, concerning the Seville Conclusions, I would draw your attention to the fact that the Commission has already presented to the Council the proposal on mandates for new readmission agreements with the People's Republic of China, Albania, Algeria and Turkey. In June 2003 we are supposed to present, as set out in our programme, the report on burden sharing on external border control. We are now preparing a report on the financial allocations for partnerships with third countries aimed at tackling illegal immigration. The report aims to identify effective allocations of financial tools, possible shortcomings and the vulnerabilities that must be overcome in the future.

When it comes to external borders, I can confirm that the Commission intends to present a reform of the common manual on external borders in March 2003. All the other actions asked of us in Seville, such as joint training and joint operation in the control of external borders, are already being developed by the appropriate Council working group and will be financed by the Commission's ARGO programme.

Finally, we recognise the fight against terrorism as a priority for 2003. As far as legislative action is concerned, priority should be given to the fight against sources of financing for terrorism, and several of the proposals included in our programme address this challenge.

As Mrs Terrón i Cusí said, we intend to bring forward proposals concerning common procedural guarantees in criminal procedures. We have launched a consultation and intend to build upon the results of that consultation in a green paper. We shall therefore be bringing forward a proposal on common minimum rules on criminal procedure guarantees in the 15 Member States by the end of next year.

(Applause)

  Nielson, Commission. – Mr President, I should like to respond to the more specific questions raised by Mrs Frassoni and Mr van den Burg. To Mrs Frassoni, who talked about the outcome of the Johannesburg Summit, I will start by saying that the Commission in many ways shares the worries about the softness of some of the decisions taken there but this has been duly commented on.

As regards the question of the relationship between international agreements on the environment and the WTO framework, in Johannesburg it was a non-event and nothing new happened: nothing was added to WTO, nothing was subtracted. Johannesburg was an attempt for the two sides to see if that balance could be changed – and it was not changed. For that reason not everyone was happy, but there is a limit to the unhappiness.

The second question from Mrs Frassoni concerned the category II initiatives which are too weak and unclear. I agree that the risk is that these weak initiatives do not add up to anything substantial. The hard core of follow-up actions for the European Union to Johannesburg will be our water and energy initiatives. These are not going to be weak or unclear. They are already on the agenda for the spring European Council and we are already engaged with the Member States in clarifying these initiatives, which we see as big and important.

I agree with Mr van den Burg that we need more rapid disbursement, especially regarding activities covered by the EDF. Things are moving forward and are somewhat better than they used to be, but we still have unsolved problems concerning staff and structure. This is an ongoing battle.

We are preparing to do bigger things in the HIPIC global health fund, education for all. All this depends on starting up the 9th EDF and I would urge Mr van den Burg when he returns to the Netherlands to make sure that the last remaining country in the convoy takes the necessary action, so that we are ready to access 9th EDF money.

As regards the agricultural profile of Europe in these global negotiations, this is back on track. We managed in Johannesburg and we are still managing to keep alive the formulations embedded in the Doha language on this front. We still see the external actions there as part of the necessary process of adaptation, which we in Europe have to take seriously. This language is continually being confirmed at all the meetings. Yesterday in the General Affairs and External Relations Council this was again the case. We are on track.

  Liikanen, Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Titley for his interest and consistency in following developments on the European defence industries. The Commission has invested a lot in this issue. We had a meeting of the enlarged external relations Commissioners in July at which some of the options for the Commission communication were discussed. Since then Mr Patten's service and mine have continued to work on this. We shall be having a further Relex Commissioners' meeting in December with the aim of defining a Commission vision of an optimum armaments policy for the European Union, ensuring that its defence-related industry is competitive and in a position to underpin the capabilities required for the ESDP. I hope that the next time this issue comes up for discussion we shall be able to present specific documents.

  President. – The final speaker is the President-in-Office of the Council. I am pleased that he has been present in person throughout the part-session, which demonstrates respect towards Parliament. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Haarder, a former Member of this House, will now close the debate, and I would ask you to pay careful attention to what he has to say. Silence please!

(Applause)

  Haarder, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, it has been a great pleasure to take part in this dialogue, which is the first of its kind. I know this because I was sitting over there as a Member of Parliament last year when the Commission presented its legislative programme, and at that time the way of working was completely different. Moreover, there was criticism from Parliament that we have heard nothing of today. This is a testament to the great progress that has been made in the dialogue between the Council and Parliament, and I am happy to be present on this occasion, too, and to contribute to the dialogue for a couple of minutes, without delaying the start of the voting at 12 noon sharp.

The Presidency is very pleased with the Commission’s proposals. We have noted the priorities set by the legislative and work programme, and I can say on behalf of the Council that we support the Commission’s intention to apply impact assessments to the chief legislative initiatives. This is something that Mr Clegg mentioned, and I believe Mrs Frassoni also talked about. In this connection, I wish to say to both Mrs Frassoni and Mr Swoboda that I too should have liked more progress to be made on the interinstitutional agreement on better lawmaking. We had an excellent meeting in Brussels on 1 October, which I believe both Mrs Frassoni and Mr Swoboda attended, and I sensed that we were very close to reaching tangible agreement on a number of points. Now, of course, time is running out, and so if we are to achieve a result by the end of the year, I would suggest that we now set ourselves some realistic goals, that we set out the points we can agree on and that we also show a degree of flexibility. The Council can make concessions on some points, for example these alternative or weak forms of regulation that Mrs Frassoni spoke about. I believe that we can reach agreement on that. Then there are other matters which are more difficult, for example comitology, where it is well known that different countries have different traditions; but let us now reach agreement on as much as possible. I am prepared to continue the dialogue, which has unfortunately been extended and interrupted. Let us resume this dialogue, and let us ask our government officials to give us a basis for discussion in the near future.

It is now up to the Greek and Italian Presidencies, therefore, to draw up a joint work programme for the Council for the coming year. The new work programme will be presented to the Council in December: probably on 9–10 December. I understand that the vote on the Commission’s programme here in Parliament is taking place as early as 5 December. I am convinced that the upcoming Presidencies will pay due regard not only to the Commission work programme but also to the views on the work programme that Parliament has expressed and is going to express in the days ahead.

I also wish to thank Mr Vitorino for his words on asylum and immigration. As I happen to be President of the Council which deals with such matters, I should like to confirm everything Mr Vitorino said. We aim to complete new sets of rules on the reception of asylum seekers, the definition of a refugee and also the question as to which state is responsible for examining an asylum application.

I would say to Mr Titley, who called for a policy towards our new neighbours after enlargement, that, the day before yesterday, the General Affairs Council in Brussels worked out a more long-term strategy, to be implemented in cooperation with the candidate countries; a strategy that shall ensure that these new borders towards the east are cooperative borders rather than another Iron Curtain.

Finally, I wish to address Mr Barón Crespo, who raised the question as to what the situation will be as regards the Commission, which will include Commissioners from the new Member States, and how the transition will take place. As I announced yesterday, the General Affairs Council recommended the day before yesterday at its meeting in Brussels that accession take place on 1 May, and that the brand new Commission, including Commissioners from the new Member States, take office on 1 November, so that the new Parliament has enough time to approve the new Commissioners. In this way, in the intervening period, from 1 May to 1 November, there will be Commissioners from the new Member States who do not have a portfolio, and who therefore do not need to be approved by Parliament. But this is all just a recommendation. I mentioned it yesterday because it is of course only possible with the cooperation of Parliament, and it is in the spirit of this good working relationship that I mentioned the Council’s thoughts. We are completely open to Parliament’s thoughts on the subject.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you very much, Mr Haarder.

The motions for resolutions on these items will be voted on in Brussels on 5 December 2002.

  Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, what I have said to the Council and to Minister Haarder is that they have decided unilaterally on a constitutional issue for the Union without consulting Parliament and without holding discussions. President Prodi has agreed with me and has told me that he is in favour of dealing with the issue at the Interinstitutional Summit at the end of the month. I have written to the President of Parliament and I would like to know whether the Presidency-in-Office of the Council is prepared to speak to Parliament about a unilateral decision which – as he has acknowledged – leads to absurd consequences.

  President. – Mr Haarder is nodding in agreement.

The debate is closed.

⁂

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, yesterday morning we had the part-session with our colleagues from the candidate countries. Although it was not an official meeting, it was one of the most interesting meetings ever held in this House. I therefore think that it is a matter for regret that although there is a verbatim report of proceedings for yesterday afternoon, there is no verbatim report of the historic proceedings yesterday morning, and I simply wanted to ask if that would be rectified.

  President. – I shall pass that question on to the administration, Mr Posselt.

IN THE CHAIR: MR COX
President

  President. – Colleagues, yesterday morning here in this Chamber I remarked that the coming year, in terms of the European enlargement process, will be a year of parliaments and parliamentarians. I refer to the work we need to do, and the work that needs to be done in the parliaments of the Member States and candidate countries. While making a success of enlargement is a key priority, we should not forget our parliamentary relations with the rest of the world. On the contrary, we need to continue and develop relations with elected representatives from other states and not least with the US Congress.

Today, therefore, I am very happy to greet four Congressmen who are in our Distinguished Visitors' Gallery: Mr Capuano, Mr Dooley, Mr Kind and Mr Moran, we warmly welcome you to Strasbourg and wish you a successful visit.

(Applause)

I should also like to point out that some of the Members of Parliament from the delegations from the Accession States are in the gallery today for our important vote.

  President. – The next item is the vote.

Report (A5-0371/2002) by Elmar Brok, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on enlargement: progress report (COM(2002) 700 – C5-0474/2002 – 2002/2160(INI))

Before the vote:

  Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would simply like to say that a series of significant errors have appeared in the Spanish version and I would be grateful if, before the vote on paragraphs 9, 30 and 146, you could allow me to take the floor to clear up these deficiencies.

  President. – I can assure you that we will make a systematic check of all the language versions after the vote, to make sure we render the texts compatible, but if you need to be called at a given point, please indicate.

Before the vote on paragraph 3:

  Brok (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on Monday the Council agreed to set the date of accession at 1 May at the latest. As I see it, we should not be arguing about one month or another, and I suggest that we should make the necessary adjustments here and accept the date of 1 May. However, to make sure that this does not put Parliament at a disadvantage when it comes to nominating the new Commission later on, we should stipulate an arrangement which will benefit Parliament now and add the following words after the date: ‘… and calls on the Council not to jointly nominate and confirm the new Commission with Parliament until after the European elections and to find a provisional interim solution for the accession countries’. I believe that we should avoid Parliament having its rights encroached upon by having nominations made before the elections.

The President established that at least 32 Members objected to the oral amendment.

  Napolitano (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, I just want to inform you that the coordinators of all the political groups in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs have adopted the decision, which will be endorsed by the committee itself, to table an oral question during the next part-session regarding the decisions that the General Affairs Council adopted on matters of sensitive institutional importance without consulting the European Parliament.

  President. – I take note of your comments.

  Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, could you explain procedurally what happened to paragraph 3?

  President. – The original text will be part of the vote on paragraph 3.

  Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I believe that, with the rapporteur's agreement, we should at least change the date, because it still says 1 March here, and the additional wording needs to be discussed in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. However, the date ought to be changed.

  Brok (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I think Mr Swoboda's proposal is a very wise one.

  President. – Let me return to paragraph 3 with what is now a new oral amendment.

The President established that there was no objection to the oral amendment.

Before the vote on paragraph 9:

  Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, paragraph 9 of the text in the Spanish version reads 'apliquen este problema [apply this problem]' referring to the transposition of the Community acquis. I believe that it intended to say that this problem should be resolved as soon as possible. It is clearly a linguistic error and I would like it to be noted, as well as the other two, which are more important.

  President. – As I assured you, we will check the linguistic versions.

Before the vote on Amendment No 51:

  Brok (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, as long as the mover agrees, I would like to make a suggestion to you, namely that the word ‘welcomes’ should be replaced by the word ‘notes’. There is a simple reason for this: the Lithuanian authorities and the Lithuanian Parliament have not yet given this their approval. However, I believe that it is important for the European Parliament that the Lithuanians should give their approval to this agreement, which is why we should use the word ‘notes’. I hope that the mover can accept this. I would also like to suggest that we should take the first sentence from Amendment No 52 from the Group of the Party of European Socialists, which was originally withdrawn, and add it to paragraph 18. That way we will have overcome the technical problems and incorporated the essential message. I would be pleased if the members of the Group of the Party of European Socialists could agree to this.

The President established that there was no objection to the oral amendment.

Before the vote on paragraph 30:

  Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, the Spanish version of paragraph 30 says that 'no se debe contar de antemano con la aprobación de la opinión pública en los Países candidates [the approval of public opinion in the candidate countries cannot be counted upon on in advance]'. This is clearly absurd, in view of what our colleagues said to us yesterday, and therefore what it should say is that 'no se debe dar por descontada la aprobación de la opinión pública de antemano [the approval of public opinion cannot be taken for granted in advance]'.

I believe this is an important point and it is worth correcting it.

  President. – Again, as I assured you earlier, we will correct all of the linguistic versions after the vote.

Before the vote on Amendment No 42:

  Poos (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to propose an oral amendment concerning paragraph 34. In fact, I shall not propose any fundamental changes, as it is just a matter of linking several amendments which take account of new considerations, which apply following the tabling of the draft report, namely the peace proposals by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

I would propose keeping paragraph 34 as it appears in the draft text, and adding Amendment No 42 to this text of paragraph 34, by simply inserting the words ‘and welcomes it in this context’. As for the rest of Amendment No 42, it would remain as is; the words ‘in this context’ would be added, in other words, a simple link. The second part of Amendment No 9 by the PPE-DE could then be considered as an addition, as well as the second part of Amendment No 12 by the Greens, which would also be an addition. These amendments are compatible.

The President established that at least 32 Members objected to the oral amendment.

  Poos (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I must point out that those who voted against this have not understood a thing …

(Laughter)

… because all they have succeeded in doing is preventing the words ‘in this context’ from being inserted, as we are going to vote on all the other parts.

  President. – Exceptionally, I will permit one brief comment, but there will be no debate on this.

  Duff (ELDR). – Mr President, I can assure Mr Poos that we understand perfectly what he is proposing and it is the inclusion of the second part of Amendment No 9 that we specifically object to.

  President. – That is why we vote. We have the chance to register our views.

Before the vote on Amendment No 10:

Before the vote on Amendment No 6:

  Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, let me cut a long story short. We were able to agree with the representatives of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats on a variety of compromises, including paragraph 1 on the Beneš decrees. Amendment No 6 now makes further changes. In order to achieve as broad a basis as possible, we will be voting for Amendment No 6. We will above all also be voting for this amendment in recognition of Mr Schröder's very successful efforts to steer a reasonable course as regards the Beneš decrees.

  President. – Thank you for that early explanation of vote.

Before the vote on paragraph 71:

  Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I am the rapporteur for this part. I would like to point out that this was originally drafted in English, and that the German translation by no means does justice to the English text. That is no doubt the reason why there is now an attempt to have a separate vote. I would just like to say once again that the English version is the only correct one.

  President. – I note that the English is the authoritative version and, as I said earlier, we will ensure after the vote that all language versions are correct.

Before the vote on paragraph 102:

  Gawronski (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to add a sentence which takes account of the more recent developments in the media sector, a sector which governments try to control and where they try to put pressure on the press. The sentence would read: 'However, insists on the need to further monitor the situation in the media sector so that its independence and pluralism are fully preserved, enabling Poland to satisfy the criteria prevailing in Member States'.

The President established that there was no objection to the oral amendment.

Before the vote on Amendment No 29:

  Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) This time I am not speaking to raise an interpretation or translation issue, but simply to say that the text 'in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council' has mysteriously disappeared from the Spanish version. We must therefore include this reference in this version, since it is important.

Mr President, I will take this opportunity to say that, perhaps in the same mysterious way, my voting card disappeared at the beginning of the vote and I have not been able to participate in the first three nominal votes. This is not going to alter the outcome of the vote, but since I was present in the Chamber, I will communicate this information to the services of the House.

  President. – Thank you for adding a touch of mystery to an otherwise interesting vote.

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0372/2002) by Sir Neil MacCormick, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the request for waiver of the immunity of Mr Karl-Heinz Florenz (2002/2200(IMM))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0376/2002) by Luciano Caveri, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2003-2004) (COM(2002) 472 – C5-0426/2002 – 2002/0210(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5.0376/2002) by Luciano Caveri , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the prohibition of organotin compounds on ships (COM(2002) 396 – C5-0347/2002 – 2002/0149(COD))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0377/2002) by Margie Sudre, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a Council decision amending Council Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 December 1989 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas departments (COM (2002) 473 – C5-0416/2002 – 2002/0209(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0382/2002) by Francesco Rutelli, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to the adoption of a Council framework decision on combating corruption in the private sector (10689/2002 – C5-0376/2002 – 2002/0817(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0374/2002) by José Ribeiro e Castro, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the Initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the common use of liaison officers posted abroad by the law enforcement agencies of the Member States (10507/02 – C5-0357/2002 – 2002/0815(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0385/2002) by Mary Elizabeth Banotti, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 and amending Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 in matters relating to maintenance (COM(2002) 222 – C5-0234/2002 – 2002/0110(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0366/2002) by Christa Randzio-Plath, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council directive on amending Directive 77/388/EEC to extend the facility allowing Member States to apply reduced rates of VAT to certain labour-intensive services (COM(2002) 525 – C5-0470/2002 – 2002/0230(CNS))

Before the vote:

  Randzio-Plath (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I would just like to stress that the European Parliament supports the Commission proposal to make the most of this experiment in reducing rates of VAT for labour-intensive services. Nevertheless, we are very disappointed that the nine Member States that have taken advantage of this did not see their way to submitting their reports on this experiment as agreed, so that the Commission does not have a basis for preparing its own legislative proposal.

I wish specifically to appeal to these Member States to submit their reports next year so that we can have a European legislative proposal on reducing rates of VAT for labour-intensive services by the end of this parliamentary term.

(Applause)

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0361/2002) by Carlos Lage, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out, for the period from 1 June 2002 to 31 May 2005, the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided by the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Principe on fishing off the coast of São Tomé and Principe (COM(2002) 398 – C5-0394/2002 – 2002/0162 (CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0362/2002) by Niels Busk, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the Commission communication on the Community action plan for the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing ((COM(2002) 180 – C5-0332/2002 – 2002/2176(COS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0349/2002) by Jürgen Zimmerling, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the state of research in applicant countries and measures needed to ensure their full participation in the framework programme (2002/2082/(INI))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Recommendation for second reading (A5-0367/2002) by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Council common position with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Directive on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and European Parliament and Council Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the (9754/3/2002 – C5-0424/2002 – 2001/0095(COD)) (Rapporteur: Alain Lipietz)

(The President declared the common position approved)

⁂

Recommendation for second reading (A5-0368/2002) by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Council common position with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council decision on the Community statistical programme 2003 to 2007 (9820/1/2002 – C5-0452/2002 – 2001/0281(COD)) (Rapporteur: Astrid Lulling)

  Lulling (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I know that statistics are dry and boring, and some people even say that they are the most subtle form of lie. Be that as it may, statistics are, it is to be hoped, an important way of decision-makers obtaining information and thus reaching the right decisions. The recommendation for second reading before us is about the Community statistical programme for the next five years, 2003 to 2007.

At first reading, the European Parliament called in particular for a significant increase in funding, which seems really essential given the work to be done because of enlargement. The Commission and the Council accepted all our amendments except that one. I can only lament this short-sightedness. In a world that is becoming ever more complicated, and in view of the increasingly close-knit nature of the internal market, European statistics are gaining in importance, and the Commission and the Council in particular need to be aware of this. Unless a decision is reached today, Eurostat will not have any money to start this programme on 1 January 2003, and I therefore call on this House to adopt the common position. I say this in the hope that the Council will this time show more insight and be more open to our wise counsel!

(Loud applause and heckling)

  President. – Thank you for that vital explanation. I must remind the House that, under Rule 110a(4), the rapporteur is fully within her rights to speak for two minutes. She spoke for less than that so we must respect that right.

(Laughter and loud applause)

(The President declared the common position approved)

  Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, on a point of order, that does not come under Rule 110a. This is a second reading.

(Laughter)

  President. – The procedure came under paragraph 4, Mr Corbett. You can consult the services to understand the Rule that you happily furnished us with several months ago.

(Laughter)

⁂

Report (A5-0344/2002) by Manuel Medina Ortega, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (COM(2001) 283 – C5-0274/2001 – 2001/0119(COD))

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0357/2002) by Eryl Margaret McNally, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision on adopting a multiannual programme for action in the field of energy: 'Intelligent Energy for Europe' Programme (2003-2006) (COM(2002) 162 – C5-0179/2002 – 2002/0082(COD))

Before the vote on Amendment No 32:

  McNally (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to add the words 'the financial reference amount has to be compatible with the ceilings of heading 3 of the financial perspective'.

The President established that there was no objection to the oral amendment.

Before the vote on Amendment No 45:

  McNally (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to add a fifth footnote, beneath the table, saying: 'The financial reference amount has to be compatible with the ceilings of heading 3 of the financial perspective'.

The President established that there was no objection to the oral amendment.

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0383/2002) by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on:

1. the initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to the adoption of a Council Framework Decision on confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities and property (10697/2002 – C5-0375/2002 – 2002/0818(CNS))

and

2. the initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to the adoption of a Council Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of confiscation orders (10701/2002 – C5-0377/2002 – 2002/0816(CNS))

(In successive votes, Parliament adopted both legislative resolutions)

⁂

Motion for a resolution (B5-0579/2002) tabled by Cristiana Muscardini on behalf of the UEN Group, on the internal market: media pluralism and media concentration in an enlarged European Union

Before the vote:

  Costa, Paolo (ELDR). – (IT) Mr President, I must point out that a linguistic correction needs to be made to the Italian text. As you know, this resolution was negotiated in English. In item 5, the expression ‘notably a directive’ is translated in Italian as ‘ad esempio una direttiva’ (‘for instance a directive’). I do not consider this appropriate and I think it should be corrected.

  President. – We will make the linguistic corrections after the vote.

(Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution)

⁂

Joint motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ on the media

Before the vote on paragraph 1:

  MacCormick (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, to clarify this matter I would like the words 'and their constitutional regions' inserted after 'Member States'. This is a matter of real concern in many parts of Europe, including Scotland.

The President established that at least 32 Members objected to the oral amendment.

(Parliament adopted the joint resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0380/2002) by Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the Commission communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy ('Roadmap') (COM(2002) 181 – C5-0330/2002 – 2002/2174(COS))

Before the vote on Amendment No 23:

  Stevenson (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, for clarification, I would like to ask the House to accept the addition of the words 'if legally possible' to this amendment. It would now read: 'Believes that the 6-12 mile coastal zone should be maintained and established as an element of the common fisheries policy for an unlimited period, if legally possible.'

The President established that there was no objection to the oral amendment.

Before the vote on recital K:

  Stevenson (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, again, in line with the previous oral amendment, could we withdraw the deletion of this particular amendment and for clarification add the words 'if legally possible'? It is now brought into line with the decision we took on the earlier amendment.

The President established that there was no objection to the oral amendment.

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0360/2002) by Dominique F.C. Souchet, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the communication from the Commission setting out a Community Action Plan to integrate environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2002) 186 – C5-0331/2002 – 2002/2175(COS))

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

President. – That concludes the vote.

EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE

- Resolution B5-0580/2002

  Martin, David (PSE). – Mr President, media concentration is an important issue not only at European and national level but also at sub-Member State level. There is a significant problem in Scotland. In the central belt of Scotland there are two serious broadsheet newspapers, The Herald and The Scotsman. The Herald has recently been put up for sale by the Scottish Media Group. Rumours have it that the current owners of The Scotsman – the Barclay Brothers – are trying to buy The Herald. This would result in a monopoly of serious media coverage in the central belt of Scotland. So when we examine media concentration we should look at its impact at every level. I would hope that the UK authorities will listen to the advice of this Parliament and ensure that the Barclay Brothers are not allowed to acquire ownership of The Scotsman newspaper.

  Alyssandrakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The situation, with regard to electronic media in particular, is steadily worsening. Biased information, censorship or distortion of news and views unacceptable to the ruling interests, widespread dumbing down and total disrespect for workers' rights are the order of the day in most modern media.

The main reason for this is because information and news are concentrated in the hands of a few major owners who are also powerful businesses. Their aim is to control information and dictate an ideology, a way of life and consumer habits. Big business has aggressively penetrated sectors which belong to the state, with the state's blessing naturally.

All we can do is to suggest a few improvements such as:

prohibiting media owners (even with just one share) from owning shares in companies which tender for public works or public procurement; insisting that shares in these companies be registered; ensuring that no one owns more than one of the same type of medium; and re-opening the debate on state-owned radio and television subject to constant and efficient public control.

The resolution under discussion turns a blind eye to the real dangers and keeps to a general stand on pluralism and freedom of expression and incomprehensible (obviously compromise) proposals on how and if the European Union should legislate in this area, which is why the MEPs of the Community Party of Greece voted against it.

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The authors of these resolutions are starting from the idea that media concentration has accelerated substantially. In the quest for the philosopher’s stone that would allow pluralism to be preserved, the European Commission is being inundated with requests.

Some believe we should organise a broad consultation of professional bodies. Others think we should consider the political, economic and legal implications of a European regulatory framework or other regulatory options that would allow freedom of speech and the pluralism of the media to be safeguarded. A third group believes we should draw up a directive that sets limits for media ownership, or propose restrictions on the appropriate use of advertising resources in order to guarantee free competition. All these are ridiculous proposals whose only function is to imply that the European Parliament is a pillar of democracy.

Most newspapers and some television channels belong to press groups which, in turn, belong to proprietary trusts of companies in many other fields: the likes of Vivendi, Lagardère, Bouygues and a few dozen others play a decisive economic and social role and are more powerful than the State and far more influential than the electorate.

In the face of these powers, governments like the European authorities only bow down and respect the speculative stock market profits and board secrets.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The best way of combating media concentration at European level is for no internal European market to be created. The increased concentration of large media groups and their greater market share is also a result of public authorities, which have liberalised and privatised this area, recently divesting themselves of responsibility for the media. An example of this is the current situation in Portugal.

I deplore the fact that a specific defence of the role of public service and the need to ensure the survival of publicly funded television channels has not been included in the resolution, as the motion tabled by my group proposed.

The best way of ensuring democracy and pluralism is to promote a strong, diverse and modern public sector, in other words, public ownership of the media, with mechanisms and instruments that provide genuine democratic control, not to mention the fact that this sector is of strategic importance in guaranteeing a country’s sovereignty.

  MacCormick (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I proposed an oral amendment to this resolution. I wanted to make it clear that within countries like Scotland and other so-called 'constitutional regions' there must be protection against concentrations of media ownership that threaten fair and pluralistic public debate. In Scotland today, there is a serious risk that the owners of The Scotsman newspaper may purchase its chief rival The Herald. Other similar regions have similar concerns, for example Catalonia, the Basque Country and Wales. The serried ranks of British conservatism, together with their EPP allies, blocked the oral amendment that would have given a high profile to this aspect of media freedom. That lies upon their conscience. Even without the oral amendment, the resolution makes a vital point about the relationship between free media and real democracy. I therefore voted for it.

IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTIN
Vice-President

- Report Brok (A5-0371/2002)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, as a member of the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee, I am pleased that the Brok report has been adopted.

In particular, I should like to underline the importance of paragraphs 121 and 122, which mention the Commission’s intention to propose an increase in financial assistance and pre-accession aid for the countries that will still be candidates after 2004, which means Bulgaria and Romania.

I hope that such aid will be substantial, and that there will not be just a modest increase in these resources because, while it is true that both countries – Bulgaria and Romania – still lack the economic prosperity that has enabled the other countries to be admitted first, it is also true that, for that very reason, they have greater need of aid to turn around their economies, which were particularly badly damaged by the years spent under the Soviet regime.

  Raschhofer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment.

A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession.

With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed.

In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the Brok report on enlargement because I believe that plenary should send out a positive signal to the 10 countries applying for membership of the European Union. Nonetheless, I have serious reservations about certain aspects of the resolution. I think that the European Parliament should throw off its present financial straitjacket and call for a substantial increase in the Community budget, so that the cohesion countries can continue to receive structural aid and new members are not treated, financially speaking, as second-class citizens. I also think that our main priority should be to support the large sections of society in European countries being swept aside by neo-liberal policies, the sell-off of public property and the dismantling of welfare systems.

  Alyssandrakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) In keeping with what I said yesterday, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece had no choice but to vote against the Brok report. Especially as today's vote was rejected by a conservative majority:

1) our amendments on Cyprus, including an addendum to the effect that the political solution must make provision for a two-zone, twin-community, federal state with one sovereignty, one international personality and one nationality, the amendment expressly calling for refugees to be allowed to return home and the proposal to replace the expression 'northern Cypriot leadership' with the expression 'Turkish Cypriot leadership'. The European Parliament also put a stranglehold on the Cypriot people by adopting an amendment calling on both sides to sign a framework agreement before Copenhagen. It is obvious, now that the Annan plan has been submitted, that the European Parliament is openly renouncing the framework of UN resolutions to the point at which it is denying refugees the right to return;

2) our amendments calling for the ban on Communist parties in numerous candidate countries to be lifted and for full recognition of the political rights of the Russian minority in Latvia. This result illustrates yet again that the pompous pronouncements of the European Parliament and of the European Union in general on respect for and the defence of human rights are pure hypocrisy and that enlargement is an anti-grass roots, anti-democratic exercise.

  Berthu (NI), in writing. – (FR) Since the Helsinki Council, the European Union pretends to consider Turkey as a ‘normal’ candidate, just like the others, and is turning a blind eye to the basic problems of its accession application. The Brok report introduces some ambiguity since, after rejecting an amendment which would have confirmed the status of Turkey as a full candidate, it nevertheless asks the European Council ‘to commit itself … to developing the accession process’.

We believe it would be completely premature for the Copenhagen Council to set a date for the commencement of accession negotiations with Turkey. We think it would be equally premature to set a date as of now for a future meeting at which the opening date would be set. We must not allow ourselves to be caught in the trap of pre-established timetables, which are skilfully used by Eurocrats, banking on the weakness of the Member States.

The Helsinki Council committed a serious error in 1999, in recognising Turkey as a ‘European’ State that would be eligible for accession to the Union. In fact, Turkey does not fall within the scope of Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union with regard to accession. On the other hand, it would be perfectly suited to a place within a broad, renewed Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

  Cederschiöld (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) The European Union is based on the four freedoms. When we carried out the Swedish referendum on EU membership, the yes-camp won due to the optimism which the citizens felt regarding the four freedoms. With this enlargement, the new candidate countries will have a period of quarantine in terms of a person’s freedom to seek work in the various Member States.

Allowing current Member States to decide on access to this freedom has devolved one of the Union’s most fundamental rights to Member States. Generosity will vary. The nationalisation of existing Union rights breaches the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and should not be implemented. No one wants to introduce internal border protection within the Union. Alien constructs like this risk watering down the fundamental freedoms.

  Ducarme (ELDR), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of the European Parliament resolution on the European Commission’s report on enlargement – the progress report – provides strong positive support for Europe and actively follows up the conclusions of the Laeken European Council of December 2001.

This resolution provides a balanced view of the impact of enlargement on agriculture and small and medium-sized businesses and industries.

The votes have also made it possible to reject amendments designed to separate Turkey from normal accession procedure. We should welcome these votes, which safeguard Turkey’s chances of joining the European Union.

  Eriksson, Frahm, Herman Schmid and Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (DA) The Brok report contains numerous directions for the future Member States, which on some points beg the question as to whether this is really something the EU should interfere in. The report also supports NATO’s plans to admit new countries: a line of action with which we totally disagree.

The report contains some very positive elements. First of all, it shows clear support for the whole project and stresses that Turkey, too, should be taken seriously as a candidate country. Turkey must of course meet the requirements on human rights and democracy before there can be any talk of proper negotiations for its accession, but we oppose the reactionary line of thinking that wants to turn the EU into a white, Christian – it is tempting to use the word ‘Aryan’ – club.

Even if the report is federalist on a number of points, therefore, we have to support its final adoption.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Although this report adopts the same line as previous reports, we are now facing a new situation, created by the discriminatory and unacceptable conditions set for the candidate countries at the Brussels Extraordinary Council on 25 October, following the Franco-German agreement. Consequently, not only have the financial resources laid down in Agenda 2000 for barely six candidate countries not been increased, despite the fact that ten were accepted for accession; the Commission proposal of EUR 25 billion has also been reduced to EUR 23 billion in the structural policy, and what makes this worse is that, under the CAP, they are attempting to divide between 25 members funds that currently serve 15, without even correcting the current injustices in the way this is shared out, earmarking only 25% of direct aid for the first year, excluding small farmers, and this is something we cannot accept.

The Council’s proposals did not meet the expectations that were raised and could even alienate more communities from the EU project. And yet referenda will only be held in the candidate countries next year. Only then will we have a true picture of what the various nations’ desires are.

We shall continue to fight for effective economic and social cohesion, which the current conditions for accession do not guarantee, to fight against the discriminatory proposals and to fight for the rights and interests of Portugal, which could be seriously affected unless the current proposals are revised.

  Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I am hoping and praying for a united, peaceful Europe. I am therefore in favour of enlarging the Union to include all the current candidate countries, including Turkey.

I abstained, however, from voting on the Brok report, because I believe that enlargement as envisaged by the report is taking place under very poor conditions. Neither the current Union nor the candidate countries are really ready. We all agree that the Treaty of Nice has not provided the Union with the necessary structures to operate properly with 25, 27 or 28 Member States.

The Convention, which should be perfecting these structures, is giving packaging priority over content. What use will there be, for example, in having a President of the European Council elected for five years with nothing to decide, as Community policies will be renationalised and intergovernmentalised? Furthermore, the recent European Council, instead of deciding on greater solidarity with the candidate countries, practically all of which have extremely serious economic and social problems to address, has actually reduced the aid package established in Berlin in 1999.

Nothing has been decided on future financing, except that CAP appropriations will be frozen after 2006 with a downward trend, in order to serve more countries with less money! The financial block is therefore scheduled to take place after enlargement. There is a great risk of the enlarged European Union simply ending up as a free trade area, with no real solidarity and therefore no European integration.

  Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) This report highlights the extraordinary work carried out by the democratic Cypriot authorities to implement the Community acquis in Cyprus and thereby make good their commitments.

Although a reunited Cyprus is not considered a criterion for accession to the European Union, which I am pleased about, a peaceful political settlement is still a priority.

Turkey also needs to support the efforts to reach a comprehensive settlement as quickly as possible, in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. The European Union must exercise all its influence in this regard.

With regard, more specifically, to possible accession by Turkey to the European Union, we should not forget that the real issue of Europe’s borders remains unresolved.

The European Union should therefore create an area of privileged relations with our closest neighbours, Turkey, Russia and the North African countries.

  Krivine and Vachetta (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The recitals conceal a situation which, overall, is disastrous, characterised in all the countries concerned by widening social and regional chasms and a vast increase in poverty and unemployment. Unemployment is the only one of these points to be raised. These regressions and their causes are completely hidden in order to give the impression that the only problems encountered arise from previous regimes or the poor implementation of liberal formulas. It is, however, the very nature of the policies imposed by the EU that is the primary cause. We also reject the positive assessment of NATO extension. The enlargement of the EU is therefore presented as a hypocritical ‘institutional step forward’ with no social rights, no development of common public assets or any real democratic choice. This assessment, however, concerns European integration as a whole. Statements on the ‘historic’ nature of European enlargement are not accompanied by any of the budgetary resources or democratic procedures that would allow quality of life and citizens’ rights to be improved in order to standardise them effectively throughout Europe.

We believe it is the responsibility of the citizens of Eastern Europe to decide whether this deterioration in their situation could be fought more effectively by staying out of the Union or joining it.

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) When the Iron Curtain came down 13 years ago everyone in the West thought that the great changes in the East would consist mainly of greater freedom of speech and greater freedom for the voters to appoint politicians of their own choice. These changes have since been overshadowed by others. We now see a growing divide between rich and poor, a substantial collapse in employment, dilution of public service, uncontrollable numbers of cars, growth projects that are at odds with environmental protection and growing dependence on expensive imports and foreign companies. The people in these countries have been prepared to accept sacrifices, dilution and chaos in the hope that they would be rewarded with major inflows of money from the EU from the time of their accession. In their view therefore 2004 is coming too late and the subsidies for agricultural and regional development are far too low. Politicians in the west of Europe who are still unwilling to admit these newcomers or who want to economise on their accession are creating the impression that they are only interested in benefits for their own country and the companies established in them. As an Eastern European I would perhaps reject accession to the EU, but as a Western European I feel obliged to show solidarity with those peoples if they themselves wish to accede.

  Queiró (UEN), in writing. – (PT) I have voted in favour of the Brok report, although I did vote against paragraph 31 for two reasons:

1. Portugal did not participate in the Second World War and it therefore makes no sense for my country to sign a common ‘European Declaration’. We cannot admit to having committed crimes and atrocities against humanity when, fortunately, we did not commit or condone any such action;

2. No mention is made of the crimes and atrocities committed in many of the candidate countries after the Second World War by Soviet communism, from which this round of enlargement is providing definitive deliverance. History cannot use two different sets of balances for facts which should inspire in us equal ethical and moral repulsion.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. – (PT) Despite some disagreement where the separate votes are concerned, I have voted in favour of the Brok report, in line with the support that the CDS/PP has always given to this process of the European Union’s enlargement. As a matter of fact, as we have frequently said, our position is that in the dispute between enlargement and the so-called ‘deepening’ of the EU, priority should – and must – always be given to enlargement. We consequently felt that Maastricht in particular was an historic error of timing and that, at that time, in light of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which had taken place just a few months previously, Europe’s leaders should have had the political vision to give priority to enlargement instead of launching straight into political union and EMU. Many of the additional problems that enlargement is, unfortunately, facing today stem from this error of timing. On the same theme, I regret the fact that the Brok report does not affirm and recommend a serious basic compromise with regard to these new future Member States: the last revision of the Treaties before the accession of these countries was undertaken in Nice and no new revision of the Treaties will take place until at least the first set of new Member States is able to participate in it, with full rights and with sufficient time for debate and reflection.

  Souchet (NI), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Brok report in its amended form, despite its ambiguity on the subject of Turkey, in order to show clearly the historic importance of the reunification of Europe, even if, under the name of enlargement, this has happened too late and under conditions that are far from ideal.

Mr Brok urges the European Union to adopt a more coherent stance on the question of Turkey’s candidacy. We urgently need to recognise that the unfortunate decision of the Helsinki European Summit, which gave Turkey the same status as a candidate country as Poland or Hungary, for example, is not based on any geographical, historical, cultural or legal grounds.

The Copenhagen Summit provides an opportunity to end this ambiguity, which, if it is not resolved, will seriously taint relations between Turkey and the Member States for a long time to come.

Instead of directly or indirectly setting an opening date for accession negotiations that would have no meaning, we should clearly place our relations with Turkey within the framework of a Euro-Mediterranean partnership which would be given true political substance, instead of simply being shunted onto a free trade platform.

- report Sudre (A5-0377/2002)

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report claims, in its explanatory statement, that dock dues need to be extended for the four French outermost regions as they already suffer particularly serious unemployment. Given that dock dues have existed for 150 years, however, it would appear that it does not actually protect workers against unemployment.

It is in practice an additional consumer tax. It therefore puts a strain on the poorest households.

Furthermore, the fact that income from dock dues is used, in particular, to finance various social aid funds is not mentioned. It is actually the responsibility of the State to provide proper social protection. Instead of forcing the poorest citizens to finance with their own taxes the very funds designed to help them, and paying considerable sums of money to subsidise employers in these regions, including with a view to building yachts for the wealthy, this money should be used to create useful jobs in the public services.

We voted against this report.

  Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) I wish to congratulate Mrs Sudre on her report, which concerns extending exemption arrangements for dock dues, authorising partial or total exemption from this tax for local production in the French overseas departments.

As I have argued both in interventions in plenary and in explanations of vote, there cannot and must not be doubts about the appropriateness of maintaining support instruments for the outermost regions under the recent Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty.

I therefore fully support the proposal to extend the validity of this scheme to 31 December 2003. Such an extension is justified by the persistent disadvantages of these territories and by the consequent need to adopt measures that compensate for these conditions.

- Report Rutelli (A5-0382/2002)

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report, which proposes to combat corruption, only illustrates your inability to do so. How could it be otherwise? You have made industrial, banking and trade secrets into supreme laws precisely in order to draw a modest veil over the thousand-and-one misappropriations, bribes, swindles and other fiddles that enable you to reap the maximum profit and even conceal the waste that your economic system represents for society.

Trying to reconcile trade secrets with combating corruption is like trying to square the circle.

How, then, can we combat corruption in an economy that turns everything into a commodity and where anything can be bought and sold, be it brains, brawn or conscience?

In abstaining from voting on this report, we would like to highlight its hopelessness.

  Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) There are various factors that contribute to corruption as a transnational problem. What is crucial is an integrated and flexible common strategy, which will enable us to achieve greater transparency, less bureaucracy, a greater simplification of rules and effective control mechanisms, in the aim of preventing conditions conducive to the proliferation of corruption from arising, and to increase opportunities for detecting and punishing such practices. We must fight against corruption both in the public sector, where it undermines the operation of the democratic system and citizens’ confidence in the integrity of the democratic rule of law, and in the private sector, where corruption tends to distort the rules of competition and prevent healthy economic development.

I therefore regret the fact that this proposal for a framework decision is intended to regulate only the private and not the public sector, especially given that national legislations are still not harmonised – there are, for example four Member States that have still not ratified the EU Convention on corruption in the public sector – which could give rise to situations of objective legal uncertainty.

Furthermore, establishing a different regulatory approach to corruption in the private sector, which is the subject of this framework decision, and to corruption in the public sector, the subject of the 1997 EU Convention, could also create problems in implementing the framework decision on the European arrest warrant.

I therefore call on the Commission to present a proposal to regulate these two types of crime.

  Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. – This report was voted on under Rule 110a of the Rules of Procedure, which allows for no debate and no amendments to the report. The British Delegation of the PPE-DE Group has previously sought to amend reports which it did not support. The new rule, however, leaves no option but to vote against certain reports.

Although Conservative MEPs wish to combat corruption, we believe that this matter should not be legislated on at a European level but should be dealt with internally by Member States. We are willing to cooperate with other Member States' authorities, but we will not go down the path of harmonised maximum penalties.

  Queiró (UEN), in writing. – (PT) On this matter, our vote was determined by the position, adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which we felt was well founded. Although we believe that there is a need for legislation that punishes the types of crime we are discussing – corruption in both the public and private sectors – the issue requires more extensive study in order to prevent the adoption of vague and indeterminate concepts, non-observance of the principle of subsidiarity, the risk of obstacles to fundamental freedoms or distortions of competition and even the use of different legal approaches to the two types of crime in question.

These, in brief, are the reasons for my vote against the report.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. – (PT) Despite the fact that, on almost all points, I agree substantially with and subscribe to the rapporteur’s concerns, I have decided to vote against the report because I, like the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, feel that the proposed text breaches the principle of subsidiarity and that, particularly at a time when the Convention is discussing this matter in the context of the future of the European Union and is attempting to clarify the definitive distribution of competences between the Union and the Member States, all Community bodies – and Parliament in particular – have a responsibility to demonstrate scrupulous respect for this fundamental principle. Furthermore, I also believe – as does the Committee on Legal Affairs – that legislation is needed to regulate these two types of crime, corruption in the public and private sectors, which will enable us to establish a more coherent and effective regulatory framework. It should be added that the European Commission is getting ready to present an initiative in the form of a communication to this end. I believe that this initiative will provide some positive approaches to consider, specifically with regard to the need for coordinated action by the European bodies responsible for encouraging cooperation between Member States in suppressing crimes of corruption, such as Eurojust, Europol, OLAF and the European judicial network, in both the public and private sectors. Indeed, coordinated action between these bodies ought to strengthen action by national police forces and facilitate cross-border investigations on the ground, through the sharing of Member States’ information capabilities.

  Rutelli (ELDR), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, on behalf of my group, I am particularly happy that Parliament has today given a strong signal of cohesion on a matter as important as combating corruption. Parliament has given a clear answer to the citizens, who are facing a serious lack of confidence in the transparency of the markets and many institutions.

The European reference framework on combating corruption is still fragmented, non-binding and in need of a bold step forward. The Danish initiative on corruption in the private sector is an initial step in the right direction, but we need to go further, especially in view of enlargement. Parliament has asked those Member States who have not yet done so to ratify the European Union Convention and the Council of Europe Convention on corruption in the public sector. If this does not happen, Parliament has asked the Council to submit a new framework decision on corruption in the public sector. This is the focus of the report. Some States are anticipating the implementation of the European arrest warrant, like the United Kingdom, which was the first country to transpose the arrest warrant into national law with the Extradition Bill.

(Text abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1))

- Report Ribeiro e Castro (A5-0374/2002)

  Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) Once again, we are considering a Member State initiative that errs on the side of being too cautious and unambitious and will not lead to the changes in legislation that are desirable and necessary in this field. Changes introduced by the rapporteur, Mr Ribeiro e Castro, have improved on the initial proposal.

Effectively combating cross-border crime requires special attention to be paid to stepping up cooperation on posting liaison officers to third countries and to international organisations. Although cooperation contributing to the prevention, identification and investigation of crimes is already in place, we must strengthen certain aspects of this cooperation between liaison officers in order to make the best use of Member State resources, thereby providing greater world coverage.

Combating international crime must be a joint action based on maximum cooperation and trust between Member States. It is crucial that binding instruments are in place at Community level, establishing common rules on the competences of liaison officers and on data protection and to subject the legality of this exchange of information to judicial control. The huge variety of laws in force creates enormous difficulties for the effective cooperation of national liaison officers and Europol, as well as complicating judicial control.

Hence this proposal for a decision, which is intended to update and improve cooperation in this field and to be legally binding on the Member States, unlike the Joint Action of 1996.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The proposal of the European Commission already warranted our opposition, but the report by Mr Ribeiro e Castro warrants even greater opposition, because it accentuates the negative aspects of the original proposal. I shall highlight the following examples:

- the seriousness of the prospect of there being ‘liaison officers who are dispatched by the various Member States’ without any monitoring by the police authorities;

- the term ‘cooperation’ is not confined to the exchange of information, specifically about crime, but also covers the prevention and investigation of criminal offences, which is unacceptable.

Due to the undisputed need for police cooperation in the EU in order to combat multinational crime organisations, cooperation could be undertaken by institutional, judicial and penal means without undermining national sovereignty.

It would be more useful, then, for the European institutions to focus their concerns on the myriad police organisations already in place, created under the Maastricht and Schengen agreements and which operate without any democratic control or monitoring and which constitute serious breaches of the citizens’ rights and freedoms and of the sovereignty of the Member States themselves.

  Queiró (UEN), in writing. – (PT) It appears that the report has largely been well received by the Members of all political groups, given that all the amendments tabled by the rapporteur and those which, although not produced by him, have his agreement, have been adopted. Only one new recital, proposed by Mrs Buitenweg, which proposes the creation of binding instruments at EU level, has been adopted without Mr Ribeiro e Castro’s support. The report mirrors the caution of the Danish initiative, which respects the current legal framework, and we therefore feel that we must support it and at the same time congratulate its rapporteur, my colleague, José Ribeiro e Castro.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. – (PT) I have, of course, voted in favour of my own report. This Danish initiative is extremely positive and timely as well as being well balanced, fully respecting the status quo of the Union’s institutional development and the Member States’ own competences and now seeking to adopt a binding legislative instrument. In fact, it is an attempt, by means of its provision for joint working methods, to strengthen the global capabilities of liaison officers posted to third countries by Member State police authorities, which will provide a clear common benefit to all of them. This specific stepping-up of police cooperation is particularly relevant in the field of information and will doubtless have an increasing role to play in combating organised crime, particularly given the rate at which this type of crime is increasing. The proposals for amendments that I tabled, with the support of the specialist parliamentary committee, are all intended to increase the effectiveness of the mechanisms for cooperation and shared use between police liaison officers, whilst at the same time attempting to remedy various shortcomings, specifically in the following areas: guaranteeing fundamental rights in the field of data protection, the regular monitoring of the liaison officer system, through annual reports and the study of these reports; similar treatment for Europol’s liaison officers and, lastly, funding.

- Report Banotti (A5-0385/2002)

  Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. – This Report was voted on under Rule 110a of the Rules of Procedure, which allows for no debate and no amendments to the report. The British Delegation of the PPE-DE Group has previously sought to amend reports which it did not support. The new rule, however, leaves no option but to abstain on certain reports.

This is a very sensitive area of policy. The British Conservative Delegation is particularly keen to protect children and their rights, and the standards which are applied in the UK are generally very high. We therefore believe that improving standards and protecting children is something where best practice should be shared but that introducing a regulation of this kind might well slow down the process of general improvement in approach.

- Report Randzio-Plath (A5-0366/2002)

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The reduction of certain VAT rates could be an advantage for consumers. It must be said, however, that the term ‘labour-intensive services’ actually hides a barely-concealed subsidy for employers in certain sectors, without consumers enjoying, as we are led to believe, even the slightest advantage.

We are in favour of removing VAT altogether, as this unjust consumer tax penalises even those whose salaries or pensions are too low to be taxable. It is a highly unequal tax, as it is applied at the same rate for the wealthy, who only spend a tiny proportion of their income on consumer goods, and the poor, whose sparse resources only just cover their expenditure.

We abstained from voting on this report.

  Ducarme (ELDR), in writing. – (FR) When the Council adopted a directive in 1999 authorising the application of reduced VAT rates to certain labour-intensive services, it was understood that this was an experimental measure due to expire on 31 December 2002.

Given the circumstances, the decision to extend this measure until the end of 2003 is a positive factor, as emphasised by the rapporteur. In fact, we need to prevent a legal vacuum from being created after 31 December 2002, as this would be harmful to the businesses concerned, in particular, very small, small and medium-sized enterprises.

The hotel and catering sector must benefit from a preferential VAT rate, given the very high level of social and fiscal charges that it pays in general. Employers in the catering sector, which is highly labour-intensive, have difficulties both in financing their investments and in recruiting additional staff.

Workers in this sector quite rightly consider that reducing the rate of VAT would allow a significant number of employees to be recruited. A reduction in VAT rates would also allow many establishments to adjust working hours. Lastly, this measure would allow tax to be collected more fairly.

- Report Busk (A5-0362/2002)

  Piscarreta (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) The common fisheries policy is of the utmost importance to Portugal. The reform that is currently underway has extremely serious implications for my country and for the Algarve region.

Implementing the reform in its current state would seriously damage Portuguese fishermen, economically, socially and in terms of their industry. Nevertheless, despite the consequences, I believe that stepping up the fight against illegal fishing is a priority that everyone accepts. Such activity prevents the effective and sustainable management of fish stocks. I therefore give my unequivocal support to the Busk report and to all measures to eradicate illegal fishing.

In this context I agree with the call to close European ports to vessels flying flags of convenience or which are engaged in illegal fishing. We will thereby prevent the entry of these products onto the European market. We cannot, on the one hand, impose strict fishing quotas and, on the other, not take action to prevent illegal fishing activities.

I am therefore, in favour of new control measures at Community level, specifically through:

- clearer marking and identification of vessels,

- compliance with the rules, to be monitored by regional organisations,

- dissuasive and uniform sanctions.

To this end, the Commission must make available financial resources that are appropriate to this fight.

- report Zimmerling (A5-0349/2002)

  Αlyssandrakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The collapse of socialism in central and eastern Europe had disastrous consequences on research, as it did on all social achievements during the socialist era. Funding fell to a minimum, research institutes closed, researchers abandoned research, there were no incentives for new researchers and, worst of all, there was a brain drain, with the most experienced researchers moving to the west. Former socialist countries with advanced research facilities were reduced to living on miserable handouts from abroad and the ΕU.

The report recommends the participation of candidate countries in the EU framework programme on research almost as a panacea. At the same time, however, it advises linking research to industry and creating a favourable business climate; in other words, it is pushing for the EU model to be adopted and wants research to operate in accordance with market rules. Although no one could object to international scientific cooperation on equal terms, we cannot under any circumstances allow research to serve and be controlled by major financial interests.

That is why the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece did not support the report.

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The report highlights the extent to which the situation in the Central and Eastern European candidate countries (CEECs) has deteriorated during the ‘painful readjustment process of CEECs’. In terms of research alone, this observation is indicative of a more general state. The collapse of research, the collapse of public funding which had previously been allocated to research, and the derisory salaries of researchers leading to ‘brain drain’, with researchers moving abroad or to jobs in the private sector, are just some of the milestones of this ‘transition … to market economies’ of which the European authorities are so proud.

We are told that the European programmes intended to support research in these countries could remedy this backwards step. The rapporteur does not really believe this himself, however, as he only foresees stabilisation in the long term.

In the meantime, Western European businesses can pick and choose. They take advantage of qualified researchers who are even more poorly paid than in the West and who have no other choice. That alone speaks volumes about the true social content and nature of ‘enlargement’. The only reason we are not voting against this report, therefore, is because some of the programmes and financing stipulated might perhaps, even if originally intended to support Western European industry, help certain Eastern European researchers in some small way.

- Report Medina Ortega (A5-0344/2002)

  Dehousse (PSE). – (FR) I am sorry to see that the European institutions, the Commission, the Council and, sadly, also Parliament are making fools of themselves by voting, on the one hand, for restrictions on the advertising of tobacco and, on the other, to maintain subsidies for tobacco producers. As long as this schizophrenia continues, voting on moralising resolutions is pure hypocrisy and I shall have no part in it.

  Konrad (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we should support the fundamental health protection efforts being made in the European Union.

I am against the tobacco advertising directive for several reasons of principle. Firstly, because it does not have a legal basis, and, secondly, because tobacco is after all still a legal stimulant. If we were to accept the Commission's logic, we would also have to rethink our position on advertising sweets, fast cars and alcohol. Thirdly, a policy that simultaneously subsidises tobacco and bans its advertising is neither logical nor consistent, and cannot therefore really be taken seriously. As I see it, this is an issue of principle, and needs to be addressed accordingly.

  Beysen (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, is it really not naïve to think that this directive is the panacea for the adverse consequences of smoking? Does the European Commission really believe that a complete ban on tobacco advertising is going to stop people smoking?

This is wishful thinking as far as I am concerned. I also take the view that people must have the freedom to find out about products as long as they are not prohibited products. I also think that there are better ways of tackling this problem, for example by drafting European guidelines that lay down standards for tobacco goods.

Finally, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that what we have here is a contradiction in se. We are going to ban tobacco advertising, but each year millions in European subsidies go to tobacco growers. Make of that what you will.

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the amended proposal to ban the advertising of tobacco products because all the amendments by the Committee on Legal Affairs were rejected. These amendments, one: watered down the restrictions in the proposal, two: allowed advertising companies to circumvent them and three: put a question mark next to the legal basis, especially following the annulment of the first proposal by the Court of Justice. However, even this second Commission proposal still has a question mark next to it, based as it is on the internal market rather than the protection of public health.

  Andersson, Färm, Hedkvist Petersen, Hulthén, Karlsson, Theorin (PSE), in writing. (SV) We, the Swedish Social Democrats behind this explanation of vote, would like to present our motive for voting against Amendment No 17, regarding Article 2 b, which is that the definition of advertising cannot be implemented under Swedish law.

The definition of advertising as commercial communications cannot be reconciled with the Constitution of Sweden/Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. We would rather see use of the definition 'commercial advertising', which would allow us to continue to exempt tobacco advertising from freedom of expression without changing the constitution. As the term commercial communications is a broader concept which also includes product placement, it conflicts with the Swedish Constitution.

The term commercial advertising does not include editorial texts, opinion advertising, product placement, artistic expression and all other forms of marketing which are not part of an advertisement. It is therefore not possible under Swedish law to ban tobacco advertising in ‘commercial communications’ or ‘commercial statements’ without first changing the constitution.

In addition, we believe that the public health perspective must be given a clearer and stronger role with regard to the internal market. When it comes to weighing up competition against public health, we believe that health must be prioritised over economic interests.

  Bernié (EDD), in writing. – (FR) The advertising of tobacco products – just like the protection of nature and animal welfare – always leads to passionate and controversial debate. I congratulate the rapporteur on the quality of his amendments and his attempt to pour oil on troubled waters. We support his report, which aims to reconcile the prevention of tobacco addiction, a priority area in terms of public health as recommended by the WHO, the opportunity for Member States to retain their provisions on advertising, without creating barriers to the operation of the internal market and while maintaining some prospects for tobacco cultivation, a sector that has an uncertain future, which allows many small, precarious farms to continue functioning.

Five hundred European producers met here in Strasbourg from 5 to 7 November in order to express their concerns over the future of the COM set up in 1999, but also to present the progress made.

They have in fact made a great deal of effort to improve the quality of their crop, which only represents 6% of world production, by reducing the quantity of tar in the plant (it should be noted that Virginia tobacco, which is cultivated more and more, hardly releases any nitrates). Let us support the tobacco growers’ efforts!

  Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Every day, tobacco kills more people, and every year, over 500 000 Europeans die from smoking or passive smoking.

In response to this scourge, we should take the necessary steps, in particular by significantly reducing all forms of advertising or sponsorship of these products. We know that these communications play a part in increasing tobacco consumption, particularly amongst young people.

Furthermore, harmonisation on the subject, due to adequate, responsible cooperation between the Member States, can effectively reduce the increase in cigarette sales as well as the number of lives destroyed by smoking.

The amendments proposed by Parliament, however, are highly ambiguous and do not adopt a position in favour of public health, but quite the opposite. Under cover of arguments twisted to suit this context, such as the emphasis on freedom of speech, the wording of the parliamentary proposals allows for too free an interpretation and does not present a firm provision to protect Europeans. We must stop this hypocrisy.

The communication on tobacco should be based more on the dangers arising from the consumption of the product, which is extremely harmful to humans and particularly costly to society as a whole.

  Inglewood (PPE-DE), in writing. – No doubt this is the first move in the next set of proceedings in the ECJ.

  Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) Smoking kills. Five million people die from smoking a year and 550 000 of them are Europeans. This must stop! The European Union is in the process of establishing legislation banning all tobacco advertising. We support this initiative, the main aim of which should be to protect public health. It is our children who are the main target of media hype and the aggressive marketing of smoking. According to the World Health Organisation, 80% of the 1.2 billion people around the world who currently smoke started when they were under eighteen. We must therefore put a stop to the direct and indirect promotion of smoking that leads to dependence, disease and death. This proposal is a step in the right direction, although it has two shortcomings.

Firstly, the proposal does not condemn indirect advertising where brands, though not the tobacco products themselves, are promoted. Promoting a brand, that is a symbol of the tobacco industry, obviously has the same effect in terms of smoking as advertising packets of cigarettes. Secondly, this draft directive establishes a platform for advertising bans, and not a complete ban as we would have wished. It should be possible for national legislation to be more restrictive than the directive on this issue. A safeguard clause must therefore be included.

We will only vote in favour of this draft directive if these two shortcomings are made good.

  Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) Money is earned from the production and sale of tobacco, but it shortens the lives of many people and makes them less healthy. Advertising that encourages people to start using tobacco products or to start using more of them is extremely damaging. In Directive 98/43/EC an attempt was rightly made to make advertising and sponsorship at European level impossible. According to the Court of Justice this is not allowed because Article 152(4) of the Treaty excludes the harmonisation of statutory and administrative provisions of the Member States for the protection and improvement of human health. Further proof that the EU is about free competition and economic growth, but not about the protection of human welfare. In the meantime the EU continues with its subsidies for Greek tobacco farmers. The solution now proposed of nothing more than the selective prohibition of tobacco advertising will lead to the companies concerned looking for the loopholes in the legislation to continue with their advertising. Lawyers and the courts will have their work cut out scanning the boundaries of these loopholes, in particular to decide what is or is not to be regarded as cross-border advertising. I therefore support the organisations that are objecting to this severely weakened proposal.

  Moreira da Silva (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) Whilst I understand many of the rapporteur’s aims to give the directive greater legal strength – and thereby avoid seeing the courts reject its implementation – I believe that the rapporteur has ultimately compromised the directive’s public health objectives. I find this intolerable. I therefore prefer the European Commission’s original position to that produced by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Amendment No 26, which I support, seeks to prevent this excessive weakening of public health protection.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. – (PT) As we all know, the Court of Justice annulled Directive 98/43/CE, on the grounds that the article of the Treaty chosen as its legal basis precludes harmonisation designed to protect human health, and that its action should instead be to complement that decided on by the EU’s Member States. In fact, the general ban on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products it provides for exceeded the competence enshrined in the Treaty and was even in breach of the rules on freedom of movement shaping the internal market. The new proposal for a directive therefore seeks to establish, in terms which are in accordance with the EC Treaty, a less restrictive framework, with new objectives for public health protection, in the conviction that tobacco is a product that is harmful to health, that deterrence from its consumption must be promoted, particularly where younger people are concerned. The proposal also seeks, whilst respecting the rules of competition and of the internal market, to prevent its widespread promotion in the media. These are the reasons why I agree with this report.

  Sacrédeus (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) I have voted in favour of the report in the final vote and against all 25 amendments from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market.

As a Swedish Christian Democrat, I felt compelled to support the restrictive and winning policy (311 votes in favour, 202 votes against and 39 abstentions) in the European Parliament.

The directive involves a ban on advertising tobacco products in newspapers, radio broadcasts and on the Internet, as well as making tobacco-related sponsorship illegal. The Member States will retain the right to take such measures as they deem necessary to protect public health when it comes to advertising not covered by the directive. I consider it a strength that all European medical organisations were united in their support of this policy.

- Report McNally (A5-0357/2002)

  Caudron (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The Commission’s proposal which aims to put in place a multiannual programme for action in the field of energy between 2003 and 2006, strengthens Community support in those energy fields contributing to sustainable development. The programme we are discussing will replace the ALTENER and SAVE programmes, and in part, SYNERGY, whilst retaining their activities. The proposed new programme has four strands. The first is the improvement of energy efficiency and demand management, particularly in the building and industry sectors (SAVE). The second is the promotion of new and renewable energy sources for centralised and decentralised production, and their integration into the urban environment (ALTENER). The third is support for initiatives on the energy aspects of transport, the diversification of fuels and the promotion of renewable fuels and energy efficiency in transport, (STEER). The final strand is support for initiatives promoting renewable energy sources and energy efficiency in the various countries as a result of the development of the sector (COOPENER).

Energy is a major concern for the European Union. I am happy therefore to see that these actions have been included in a single programme. This should allow them to be managed and implemented more effectively.

Furthermore, I agree with the rapporteur in that we will need a larger budget if these aims are to be fulfilled!

- Report Di Lello Finuoli (A5-0383/2002)

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing – (FR) The rapporteur has made it abundantly clear that the European institutions have been discussing how to crack down on organised crime (money laundering, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, people trafficking etc.) for more than twenty years now. On the rare occasions when measures have actually been taken, they generally come up against a lack of cooperation from Member States or fail to produce tangible results, in the cases where they are not simply ignored. There is every reason to believe that the same will apply to the Danish initiative.

There is a good reason for this. Organised crime is part and parcel of the capitalist system, even where bourgeois justice is concerned. Take the example of drugs money. How many supposedly respectable fortunes in France and Great Britain date from the time when gunboats from these countries forced China to open itself up to the opium from British and French colonies!

Even now, European banks are still making huge profits from the trafficking of drugs, arms and people.

In this context, these trivial measures, on which we will abstain, are pathetic in their attempt to bring morality into a system that is essentially amoral and inhuman.

  Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) I wish to congratulate Mr Di Lello on the quality of his work.

The Citizens of the European Union have the right to expect the Union to effectively confront the problem of increasing threats of crime, which does not recognise borders and which attacks their freedom and their rights. What is required is rapid, concerted and joint action, which effectively coordinates all efforts to combat and prevent crime throughout the territory of the Member States.

One of the most effective instruments with which to combat organised crime is the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. Difficulties arise, however, as a result of the disparities between the various Member State legislations. The Union must make efforts to approximate criminal law and procedures on money laundering and the confiscation of goods.

The adoption of the framework decision on money laundering has enabled us to make progress but has proven to be inadequate, because there remains a considerable margin for criminal impunity insofar as this decision only established sanctions for serious crimes. This matter has come to be regulated by two acts of differing legal value, because Joint Action 98/699/JHA has not been revoked. This proposal for a framework decision is a step in the right direction, because it aims to ensure that all the Member States have in place effective rules providing for confiscation when an offence is punished by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year.

I agree with the rapporteur’s position on the proposals by the Danish Presidency on the possibility of ‘more extensive’ confiscation and the inversion of the onus of proof. Any legislative initiative must respect the individual rights and fundamental freedoms of our citizens.

  Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. – Whilst Conservative MEPs support anything which enhances cooperation between Member States' law enforcement agencies, we cannot support any prescriptive European measures such as those proposed in this Report. Such matters should be dealt with internally by the individual Member States.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. – (PT) As the rapporteur points out, one of the most effective instruments for combating organised crime is the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of illegal activities, particularly when such proceeds are destined for laundering. The lack of coordination between the various crime-fighting bodies can only benefit those involved in such activities, which means that we must, to this end, improve mutual assistance in the fight to capture the proceeds of organised crime. These initiatives and the rapporteur have both sought to establish a designated framework for action under the framework decisions, to safeguard the necessary independence of the national authorities when dealing specifically with incidents that have occurred within their territory – whilst at the same time providing for common mechanisms for regulation in order to pursue the shared commitment to combat all forms of organised crime, in line with the conclusions of the Tampere Council. The rapporteur has also taken care to ensure that, when considering the illegal origin of property, the inversion of the onus of proof only applies when the prosecution can prove that the property possessed is disproportionate to declared income or the activity pursued, with the person convicted then having the onus to prove the lawful origin of the property. I have therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Sacrédeus (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) There are insufficient safeguards for legal rights in the proposal presented by Denmark. It is unacceptable that Member States would be able to confiscate property owned by the defendant or their family members, who have nothing to do with the criminal activity, if the convicted person cannot prove that this property was acquired by legitimate means. This involves something as revolutionary as reversing the burden of proof.

The committee’s amendments are certainly good, as they are aimed at repudiating the reversed burden of proof, but this still does not clarify the situation sufficiently. A satisfactory legal text should clearly establish that only property deriving from proven criminal activity, or of equivalent value, can be seized. We Swedish Christian Democrats believe that the wording of the framework decision should be discussed further, so that no hasty restriction of legal rights occurs.

Although I believe that harmonised EU legislation plays an important role in facilitating the fight against crime, from the point of view of legal rights I am forced to abstain on this matter.

- Report Stevenson (A5-0380/2002)

  Stihler (PSE). – Mr President, I should like to add my support to your speech on The Scotsman and The Herald.

Before I begin on the Stevenson and Souchet reports, I find it quite disgraceful that colleagues in this House do not recognise that half a million EU citizens die every year because of tobacco use. A tobacco advertising ban would be an extremely good measure to try and help public health and save lives.

On the Stevenson report, I should like to point out that we voted to maintain the 6-12 mile zones to preserve historic fishing rights and derogations relating to boxes in the North Sea. We also believe that benefit from fishing agreements should be taken into account in quota setting and that poverty eradication is a key aim of fishing agreements. We are very sceptical of an amendment deleting the recital which noted that joint ventures can be used to massage fleet reduction figures.

On the Souchet report, we voted against Amendments Nos 10 and 11, and Recitals H and I for sustainability reasons and abstained on the final vote for very similar reasons, i.e. the environmental impact and making sure sustainable development is at the heart of the policy.

  Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, as you all know, I was the original rapporteur for this report. The document was totally destroyed in the Committee on Fisheries and I felt compelled to give up the task of drafting the report, which was given to the Committee’s Chairman, Struan Stevenson. I know I am in a minority, but I must say that the main reason for my attitude is that the report we have just adopted ignores the main issue. By this I mean that the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002 is purely and simply a result of the fact that the transitional period of 16 years granted to the Spanish State and to Portugal, so that they need no longer be intruders in Community waters and have the same rights as the other Member States, has come to an end.

I cannot, of course, accept this situation. I am also, of course, in favour of the conservation of stocks – I have nothing against this, in fact – but the report and the committee have not given due consideration to the economic and social consequences of the reform. Nor do they discuss a budget for a reform of such importance, but uphold the principle of relative stability, which is now discriminatory and grants privileges, because it was established when the EU had only six or nine Members. Furthermore, the report heaps scorn on international fisheries. I therefore dare say that there will soon need to be a new real reform of the CFP, to ensure that it is a genuinely common policy. It is now less of a common policy than it used to be!

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report purports to concern the environmental, social and economic consequences of fishing, both within the European Union, and as regards relations with other countries, especially developing ones. The rapporteur proposes technical solutions to the problems currently affecting fishing. According to the rapporteur, these solutions are intended to compensate to some degree for the so–called liberalisation that fishing is currently experiencing.

We have voted in favour of the sections of the report we believe to be in the interests of either small fishermen, consumers or environmental protection. Nevertheless, we abstained on the report as a whole. The report does highlight some of the threats to the balance between human beings and nature, and some of the threats to people who live entirely off the sea and have no other means of making a living. The report does not however challenge in any way the rationale of a social system in which producers, workers and the natural world are always sacrificed on the altar of capitalist profit.

- Report Souchet (A5-0360/2002)

  Andersson, Färm, Hedkvist Petersen, Hulthén, Karlsson and Theorin (PSE), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats decided to abstain in the final vote on this report. We reached this view because we believe that, although the report emphasises the importance of sustainable development in fishing, of environmental issues being integrated into the reform of the common fisheries policy and of the further need to clarify the environmental impact of industrial fishing, it also contains a host of signals and statements which we cannot support.

For example, we oppose state subsidies for a fishing fleet which is already too large in relation to fish stocks, despite the fact that there are probably deficiencies in terms of safety on some fishing vessels. Such vessels should be scrapped rather than upgraded to contribute to continued overfishing. The long-term aim of the fishing industry must be sustainable development. Fishing capacity must therefore be cut in order to bring it into balance with existing fish stocks. That is something about which there can be no doubt. Sustainable fishing is not the enemy of the fishing community but its greatest friend.

We are also highly sceptical about the statement in the report that no impact analysis to date has been able to prove that further reductions in capacity would benefit the environment, particularly as we currently know very little about the way the various parts of the ecosystems affect each other. Although it is surely the case that greater investment in increased marine research in the future may bring about clearer conclusions in this area, the precautionary principle dictates in any case that a reduction in capacity is a necessary – if insufficient – measure.

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Supposedly on the grounds of environmental protection, the Commission is proposing reducing the fishing fleet and encouraging the use of more powerful fishing gear, over and above the use of less powerful gear. This will reduce the number of artisanal fishermen.

We should ask ourselves whether it is really necessary to place limits on catches and therefore on fishing in order to safeguard the marine environment. The proposed measures will in no way affect industrial fishing that plunders the sea. There is nothing preventing us protecting and even improving the revenues of small fishermen and those who live off the sea and have no other means of support. The rapporteur does not contemplate this in any way. The only way we can protect both the environment and workers is to protect the revenue of small fishermen. The report however offers no such protection. One of the options presented to fishermen in the report is for them to become cleaners of the sea and to use their boats in dealing with oil slicks. The worst aspect of this is that unfortunately there is likely to be a continuing need for this clean–up work, due to the actions of the big oil conglomerates, together with ship–owners and their shareholders. The inability of European and national authorities to put the collective interest above the destructive selfishness of capitalists also contributes to this problem. While we will vote in favour of certain aspects of the report which would benefit fishermen and the environment, we will abstain on the report as a whole.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Souchet report is quite positive and warrants our support. Firstly because of the importance it attaches to the participation of fishermen and their professional associations in the field of research and information on the state of fish stocks, given that fishermen are in favour of protecting the environment, since these are amongst the first people to suffer from its impairment. Secondly, I agree with the rapporteur’s statement that the pressure fishing places on stocks must not be dealt with in a uniform and global way and must instead take account of the particular characteristics of each fishing area and the specific nature of each fish species.

The report rejects the use of rigid instruments such as the scrapping of vessels, which have irreversible consequences and major socio-economic effects and prefers other, more flexible instruments for managing stocks. I support the maintenance of public aid for modernising the fishing fleet, which has a direct impact on working conditions, on safety and on the quality of products, thereby rejecting a philosophy which, whilst claiming to be concerned about the environment, is attempting to undermine aid, in what we could call a liberal ‘greenification’.

  Κorakas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) First, we think the motion for a resolution on environmental protection under the common fisheries policy is a good idea and we support it.

It rightly notes that the European Parliament is opposed to the horizontal application of restrictive measures, that is, measures which take no account of fishing zones or fish species. The European Parliament is therefore taking an indirect stand against the basic option of reforming the common fisheries policy, which would mean an end to public aid for the modernisation of fishing vessels. It likewise rightly identifies the dangers to the economies of coastal areas affected by these measures.

It rightly notes that the Commission's arguments in favour of the application of restrictive policies are not based on scientific data and that specific studies need to be carried out in order to evaluate the real state of fish stocks.

Although it calls for these studies to be carried out, it also calls for restrictions such as TACs and quotas to be maintained. We would point out that proposing such measures without first carrying out the aforementioned studies is a contradiction in terms and that we have reservations about and are opposed to any further strengthening of the role of the Commission which helps bring about further integration.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. – (PT) I have voted in favour of this report because I believe that its approach to the issue of protecting the marine environment is the right one. As the rapporteur points out, decisions on fisheries management must be taken in close cooperation with fishermen, who are the main people involved and the most aware of the problem. They are motivated, of course, by the overwhelming need to ensure that their activities remain sustainable and they are also the main victims of damage sustained by the marine environment. Unlike the Commission’s approach, which suggests a global and uniform reduction of the pressure fishing places on stocks, not taking account of the specific characteristics of the various species and of the various fishing areas, we must, instead, follow the position adopted by the Santa Maria da Feira European Council, which recommended a sustainable balance between stocks and fishing. It should furthermore be noted that the fisheries sector is directly exposed to the consequences of marine pollution, suffering damage that is often far more devastating and is specifically exposed to accidents involving shipments of dangerous products, such as the latest and very recent accident involving the ship Prestige, on the Western coast of Galicia, the tragic sequel to the Erika.

  President. – That concludes the explanations of vote.

(The sitting was suspended at 1.37 p.m. and resumed at 3.03 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice–President

  President. – During the session of 24 October 2002, Parliament voted on draft Amendment No 654 concerning budgetary line B3/300 entitled ‘General information work concerning the European Union’. The outcome of the vote was as follows.

The outcome of the split vote on Amendment No 654 was as follows:

1. The whole text apart from the pre–allocation for Euronews and the reserves: this part was adopted.

2. Pre–allocation of EUR 3 million for Euronews by roll–call vote: this part was also adopted.

3. Reserves for the pre–allocation for Euronews: this part was rejected.

4. General reserves: this part was adopted.

The outcome of the vote means that the pre–allocation of EUR 3 million for Euronews was maintained, the reserve for Euronews was discontinued, the credits were included in the line and the global reserve was maintained. Amendment No 736 which was included in the appendix of the Minutes of the session of 24 October 2002 do not reflect the result of the vote in plenary in as much as the last two parts of the vote appear in reverse order. The relevant services have therefore made the necessary change.

  Wynn (PSE). – Mr President, I do not doubt that is what the President's notes say, but one of the problems with accepting it is that my notes and those of other Members and of the general rapporteur say differently. The problem is that my notes are in Brussels, not here in Strasbourg, so when I saw this in the Minutes I asked to raise it. Could I ask that we check the audio or video tapes of that voting procedure to establish the actual position? I am of course convinced that what I say is correct, but if I am proved wrong then I am more than happy to accept that.

  President. – Very well, Mr Wynn. We will of course check these tapes as you have asked. We will then be able to be absolutely sure about the result.⁽¹⁾

  President. – The next item is the statements made by the Council and the Commission on the outcome of the EU–Russia Summit.

I call on Mr Haarder to speak on behalf of the Council.

  Haarder, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, the tenth EU–Russia Summit took place in Brussels on 11 November with satisfactory results.

The meeting reflected the intensity and depth of the cooperation between the EU and Russia. It showed that this cooperation is now entering a new phase; the framework for the strategic partnership has been laid down, and now it remains to flesh it out with practical actions.

As you know, there was a major problem, which has been discussed many times in Parliament, that is, Kaliningrad. Consensus was reached on a joint declaration regarding transit between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia. The agreement represents a balance between the interests of the candidate countries, Russia and the EU. The fact that a solution could be found to the problem confirms the strength of the cooperation between the EU and Russia; and at the same time the EU asserted that it attaches the utmost importance to respect for the sovereignty of the candidate countries and effective border controls on the EU’s external borders. We stood firm on the principles that Lithuania is a sovereign country and that it has as much right to join cooperation on Schengen as all the other candidate countries. This is something that was respected, even by President Putin. Consensus was reached, and I can add that President Adamkus of Lithuania, too, accepted the agreement which was entered into.

Consensus was also reached on a joint declaration on the fight against terrorism. This was a key point for both parties. The summit condemned terrorism in all its forms. The declaration and the accompanying cooperation plan are indications that cooperation between the EU and Russia on this point is moving on from an exchange of information to practical cooperation.

Lastly, consensus was reached on a declaration on the situation in the Middle East, which confirms the existing consensus between the EU and Russia on this matter.

There was a frank debate on the situation in Chechnya. The parties were agreed that the conflict cannot simply be regarded and treated as a problem of terrorism and that a political solution is the only way to lasting peace, stability and development in the area. I know that Commissioner Patten has already spoken of the extraordinarily open debate which took place.

The European Union will monitor developments closely. Both sides must respect human rights, and the EU must insist that those who do not are brought to justice. The EU will also demand that the international community be given the opportunity to provide the urgently needed humanitarian aid to Chechnya.

Regional conflicts, particularly the one in Moldova, were also discussed. It is important to maintain that there are no geographical restrictions on the scope of the political dialogue between the EU and Russia.

The European Union stressed the need for progress on the economic and legal reforms in Russia in order to ensure Russian membership of the WTO. In addition, the need for Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and the Energy Charter was emphasised.

By way of conclusion, I am able to call the summit a success, with a constructive dialogue in all fields. The cooperation between the EU and Russia has entered a new phase in which no topic for discussion is ruled out; and that will be to the advantage of both parties.

  Nielson, Commission. – Mr President, the European Union/Russian Federation Summit that took place on 11 November in Brussels succeeded in producing an understanding, as you already know, on the issue of transit between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia.

As you are also aware, as a result of the discussions held at the May Summit in Moscow, the EU had agreed to carry out a review of the matter, taking further into account Russia's concerns about unimpeded travel of Russian citizens throughout the whole territory of the Russian Federation, including Kaliningrad.

In the relatively short time between the two summits, the Union completed a comprehensive review of the situation. Following a communication from the Commission in September, this review formulated a new position on Kaliningrad transit issues, which was adopted in October by the European Council meeting in Brussels.

In parallel discussions with both Russia and Lithuania, the Presidency and the Commission managed to develop ways and means to ensure that the vital interests of all parties concerned would be respected. In addition to Russia's legitimate interests, the EU was very much aware that any arrangements requiring further definition could not undermine the sovereignty of Lithuania – a future member of the Union – or carry negative implications for Lithuania's future accession in full to the Schengen regime.

Last but not least, the European Union must adequately protect its borders at all times, a task for which it was essential to respect the Schengen acquis.

The European Commission is confident that the understanding reached at the Brussels Summit strikes the right balance between these parameters, making it possible to resolve the issue of Kaliningrad transit in a manner which is acceptable to all parties concerned.

The Commission has already started work to prepare for the implementation of the understanding reached at the Summit. Time is short and we are fully aware of the need to launch preparations without delay in order to meet the deadline of 1 July 2003, when Lithuania will introduce the new regime for Russian rail travellers crossing its territory. We are confident that by then the conditions will be in place to allow the introduction of simplified travel documents.

I would like to add that resolving the issue of Kaliningrad will allow us to substantially deepen and accelerate our cooperation with the Russian Federation in a number of important areas. Among these, the European Commission regards justice and home affairs as particularly important. Indeed cooperation with Russia on issues such as the fight against organised crime, illegal migration, drug trafficking, women trafficking and child pornography among others, is crucial.

On this matter, Russia confirmed at the Summit that the agreement between Europol and Russia will be rapidly concluded.

In addition, Russia and the European Union will immediately launch negotiations with a view to concluding a readmission agreement as soon as possible.

In this context, the Summit also produced a joint statement defining areas for further cooperation in the fight against terrorism, which is a clear priority for both sides. We intend to increase the exchange of information in a number of relevant areas, as well as to deepen cooperation against terrorism in multilateral arenas and in regard to the provision of assistance in this field to third countries.

Other important issues were discussed at the Summit. The on-going conflict in Chechnya featured prominently among these. In this regard, the European Union raised its serious concerns over Chechnya. I would like to assure you that the well-established position of the Union on the matter was put forward to President Putin in quite clear terms. While expressing its support for Russia against terrorism in all its forms, the Union explicitly stated that the fight against terrorism cannot be conducted at the expense of basic human rights. This is also valid for Chechnya.

The Union raised again the problem of unimpeded and safe access for humanitarian workers on the ground in Chechnya.

In addition, the EU urged the Russians to promote without delay a political solution that provides a framework for lasting peace, stability and reconstruction in Chechnya.

At the Summit we also had a good discussion on a number of international issues, including the Middle East, on which we agreed a joint statement.

We reviewed the situation in Afghanistan, as well as the need for Iraq to comply fully with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. We also exchanged assessments regarding the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Korean Peninsula.

Finally, we reviewed the situation in Moldova and Belarus. Russia has already agreed to the withdrawal and destruction of ammunition in the breakaway region of Transnistria.

The EU stated that it is essential that this takes place rapidly in order to promote a solution to the conflict which continues to impede the development on Moldova, which is now the poorest country in Europe.

We also made it clear that we expect Russia to use its influence on the government of Belarus to adopt a more positive approach towards democratisation and respect of human rights.

On the economic side, progress was less marked, except for the change in the EU anti-dumping regulations, which now accord Russia market economy status. In addition, the Summit endorsed progress reports on the energy discussions and on the concept of a common European economic space.

The EU also raised a number of its commercial concerns, including the discriminatory charges levied by Russia for European aircraft flying over Siberia.

The EU pressed Russia to confirm expectations of early Russian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and to commit itself to conclude a long-delayed agreement on the clean-up of nuclear waste in north-west Russia, the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme in the Russian Federation (MNEPR).

I trust most of you are already aware that the 11th EU/Russia Summit will take place in St Petersburg, in commemoration of the 300th anniversary of the city. Taking this into account, Russia has invited all EU leaders to this special summit, which should serve to deepen our bilateral cooperation with Russia even further.

  Poettering (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my group advocates a stronger strategic partnership between the European Union and Russia, because we are convinced that peace in our continent is largely dependent upon our ability to maintain a strong and effective European Union and an effective and democratic Russian Federation. We also recognise the progress that Russia has made in recent years in overcoming the legacy of the Communist era. We are, however, amazed at some of the circumstances surrounding the Brussels Summit. This negative view really needs to be aired here. It concerns both Chechnya and Kaliningrad.

With regard to Chechnya, I would like to say that we are constitutional states and Denmark is also a constitutional state. It is the indisputable right of the Chechens to hold a peaceful conference in Copenhagen if it is their wish to do so. I do not wish to criticise the presidency for the fact that the summit ended up being held in Brussels. But I believe that we need to be courageous and not always give in when our partners in talks put pressure on us and demand concessions. On the contrary, we need to stand firm.

We are in favour of resolutely fighting terrorism, because terrorism is an obstacle to the peaceful coexistence of peoples. We very much declare war on any form of terrorism. However, we also believe that the war on terrorism should not be deprived of its legitimacy by surrendering human rights in its name. That is why we are demanding that the war on terror should go hand in hand with a global ethic based on human rights. What this means in practice is that the human rights of the Chechen people should not be sacrificed at the altar of the war on terror, necessary though that war may be.

I was extremely surprised by what I read in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 13 November. Russia's President Putin was reported as having responded to a journalist that ‘if you want to become Islamic radicals and are therefore willing to be circumcised, than I invite you to come to Moscow. We are a country of many different faiths, and we have excellent doctors. We would recommend carrying out the operation in such a way that nothing grows again’. That is typical of the way human rights are breached in Chechnya. I would be very pleased, Mr President, if in future the issue of Chechnya could be addressed in writing in the communiqués issued following these summits. I have not been able to find a single word about this in the communiqué, even though reporters told me that Mr Rasmussen championed this cause, and Commissioner Patten also informed the Committee on Development and Cooperation about this. However, this should also be included in the conclusions of a summit of this kind.

Now let me turn to Kaliningrad. I read today in my local paper, the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung, a well-written article entitled ‘Russia offers little hope. People of Kaliningrad expect much from EU, but little from Moscow.’ I naturally welcome the fact that the thorny issue of visas has been resolved. However, the people in the Kaliningrad region or ‘oblast’ – and this is the heart of the matter – look far more towards the West than they do towards Russia. Igor Rudnikov, the managing editor of the courageous newspaper Novye Kolyosa, which means ‘New Wheels’, has said that the rhetoric and fuss issuing from the Russian Federation on the subject of Kaliningrad has only damaged its cause. They look towards the capitals of Europe – to Paris, to Warsaw and to Berlin. The central issue is that the Kaliningrad region should be developed so that it does not become a no-man's-land in Europe, but becomes part of a development axis running through Poland and into the Baltic states. It would do Russia credit to put this on the agenda, so that these human problems can be solved.

I would like to encourage you, Mr President-in-Office, and the Commission, to act with this in mind. If you do that, you will have our support too.

(Applause)

  Paasilinna (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my group thinks it is important that we have a programme of extended and comprehensive cooperation with Russia. Now we are starting to reap the rewards of bringing down the Iron Curtain. Now too conditions in Russia are stabilising, except with regard to certain aspects, which I shall return to. This being the case, we are in favour of establishing a Common European Economic Space. It will be an important step on the path we are developing towards normal relations with Russia. The Union has said Russia is a normal market economy. That is saying quite a lot, perhaps, although Russia is on the right track and this is consequently a step towards accession to the World Trade Organisation.

We have to remember that one consequence of enlargement is that the border between Russia and the Union will lengthen and that is very significant. Russia will lose its markets to some extent in those countries joining the EU, and that is something we also have to take into consideration to some extent.

I am pleased that the heated controversy over Kaliningrad was resolved at the summit. I do not think this was perhaps the major problem it sometimes appeared to be in the debate. We are also responsible for developments with regard to Kaliningrad, and I agree with Mr Poettering that we have to be able to provide help and assistance and work together to improve conditions for the people who live there.

We are of the opinion that the war in Chechnya is a problem for Russia, for us and for the Chechen people, who are at the centre of the war. We believe that human rights must not be violated under the pretence of the fight against terrorism. This has to do with Russia and it also has to do with other countries that we have been praising here or which are perhaps our older allies. The fight against terrorism has become an umbrella that allows violent actions to be carried out by countries against their own and other citizens. This must not be allowed to happen.

The question of Chechnya is being raised because we have a delegation leaving for Chechnya, and I am its chairman. There has been a development regarding this in that today, after lengthy negotiations, I received a letter from Dmitri Rogozin of the State Duma, inviting us to go there on 20 January. It had been suggested that we should go in late December, but that is Christmas and we asked if the visit could be rescheduled. This being the case, January seems a good time to go, if the members of my delegation agree: all this has happened so very recently.

Russia is a big partner for us. Trade between us is worth approximately 25 billion dollars a year, while the figure for the United States of America is just 3 billion and for the former countries of the Soviet Union only just over 10 billion dollars. We are thus a giant trading partner of Russia.

I should therefore like to ask the Commissioner in what state the energy dialogue can be in if all of a sudden Gazprom decides on a gas pipeline – coolly decides to build a gas pipeline. The energy dialogue between us has not been very visible in this project. We are the world’s largest energy area, and the energy issue is therefore very important.

I should furthermore like to mention the state of the press in Karelia and elsewhere too in Russia, where there are pressures that are simply not acceptable.

  Väyrynen (ELDR). – (FI) Mr President, Russia is of interest to us and is a partner that presents challenges. For some reason, when we give our opinions we often stress in particular Russia’s various problems instead of concentrating on its positive achievements and the potential that exists in future cooperation. Many things are obviously better in the Union but we also have problems Russian Members of Parliament could seize on if they so wished. To their credit, they do not. I do not mean that we should keep silent, for example, about environmental problems, lack of democracy or human rights violations in Russia. It is a matter of how we weigh things and how we handle them.

Right now it is important for us to discuss the effects EU enlargement will have on cooperation between the EU and Russia. We have been able to resolve problems to do with Kaliningrad’s status but there is still much work to be done. In this regard the ball is very much in Moscow’s court. We need them to be unbiased in their approach to implementing changes in Kaliningrad so that there is investment there coming from the rest of Russia and abroad too. Now that the border between the EU and Russia is to lengthen we must make renewed efforts to develop northwestern Russia and boost cooperation in the border regions. The Union must make a more serious effort than it has until now to engage in programmes of cooperation in the Barents Sea and Baltic Sea regions and furthermore direct substantial economic resources at those areas.

Another question of current importance is the development of cooperation in the area of energy. That would enable us on the one hand to help Russia develop its energy economy and protect its environment and, on the other, safeguard our own energy economy. It is in this spirit that progress must be made in the area of cooperation.

  Seppänen (GUE/NGL). – (FI) Mr President, my group notes with satisfaction that an agreement has been made that guarantees traffic connections with Kaliningrad after Lithuania and Poland join the Union. We in the EU must focus special attention on basic repairs of railway tracks in Lithuania. For that purpose we have to provide adequate financial support.

It is believed in the European Union that the need for energy grows at a rate of 1% a year. The intention is to meet the extra demand by increasing the use of natural gas. Russia is an important partner for the EU because the reserves of gas in the North Sea and North Africa will run out in twenty years or so. The EU’s demand for gas has to be met with exports from the east.

Cooperation on the issue of energy is not progressing satisfactorily. The best form of cooperation would be if pipelines were built linking Russia and the EU. If the pipelines go through Poland, Belarus and Ukraine there will be needless waste.

Early this week Gazprom announced, as Mr Paasilinna stated, that it was constructing, on its own, a gas pipeline from the Shtokmanovsk deposit in the Barents Sea to Central Europe. That is good news, as in that way the EU countries’ increased demand for the use of energy is satisfied. It is bad news if looked at from the point of view of cooperation. The EU is not now a party to the project and it will pay in the future.

Adherence to market conditions in the EU will not solve the problems of the energy market. Liberalisation of the market makes it impossible in practice to finance new investment by means of long-term supply contracts. If those who need gas shared in the costs of its delivery onto the market that would improve reliability of supply and over a time span of twenty years that is what will be the most important thing.

With Russia we have to speak about factors that unite us. One issue that separates us is the civil war in Chechnya. We all hope for a peaceful solution to the war. At the same time we note that at the summit attended by leaders of the EU and Russia no demands were made by the EU regarding Chechnya’s independence as a state. The region is therefore regarded as a part of the Russian Federation. Human rights cannot be trampled on in Russia using terrorism as an excuse, nor in the United States of America either.

  Staes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make four comments. The first one is about Kaliningrad. I believe that enormous efforts have been made in this regard in recent months. The Commission and the Council had meetings with Mr Rogosin, the presidential envoy, and with Minister Rasov. At the instigation of our President, Mr Pat Cox, they also had parliamentary support at two meetings with our Polish, Lithuanian and Russian colleagues. I believe that we can be satisfied with this and my group is satisfied with the result achieved.

Secondly, Chechnya. Yes, it is clear that the events in the Dubrovka Theatre must of course be condemned, and as Chair of the Russia delegation that is what I immediately conveyed to Mr Lukin. We can condemn it and we do of course also want an explanation of the gas that was used, of the circumstances in which action was taken and of how the forces of law and order acted. I believe that some additional clarity about this is required. We also note that there is a tougher stance on the part of the Russians with regard to Chechnya. Nonetheless, the European Parliament has taken the lead in this debate in recent months. We have said that we are in favour of negotiations and talks, because a military solution is not going to produce a result. I find that our Russian friends, President Putin not least, have now adopted an extremely rigid attitude and since 11 September have put the whole struggle in Chechnya in the context of the war on international terrorism. I believe this to be an aberration. Only holding talks, even with the people around Mr Maskhadov, will lead to a genuine solution.

Thirdly, I should like to express my concern here about the general state of human rights in Chechnya. Amnesty International has recently published a report about the freedom of the press, about the lack of religious freedom and about the general human rights situation in Russia. I believe that this warrants some attention on our part.

Finally, I would draw your attention to an environmental problem. At the beginning of October my delegation visited Murmansk. There we studied the nuclear inheritance of the Soviet Union. All the local people and all the local authorities there are asking for a multilateral nuclear environment programme. I should like to ask the Commission and the Council very clearly how things stand with the negotiations on this treaty? It is absolutely essential that there is one, otherwise no one can take responsibility for clearing up the nuclear inheritance of the Soviet Union properly. I should like to put this question to you Commissioner and to you Mr Haarder, for which my heartfelt thanks.

  Marchiani (UEN). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Chechen terrorists were most unwise in deciding to attack the theatre in Moscow. It was an appalling decision in that the toll in human life was so great. It goes without saying that the members of my group wish to pay their respects to each and every one of the victims. This hostage–taking incident has also somewhat changed Parliament’s standpoint on this issue. Prior to 11 September, the situation was simple. On the one hand, there were the Chechens, a people fighting for their freedom and their right to self–determination. On the other hand, there was the tyrannical Russian regime. There was also the United States who, for their own ends, also defended the cause of the Chechen Muslims.

The investigation into this attack and ending of the hostage situation has shown that there are very close links between the Chechen movement and international Islamic terrorism. Chechnya has become a base camp for international terrorism and the trafficking of arms and drugs.

Ladies and gentlemen, I call on you not to repeat the mistakes made at the time of the war in Kosovo. On that occasion we allowed ourselves to be led by the media and the statements made by the United States applauding the attacks on the Christian Serbs who were threatening the brave Muslims of Kosovo. Since then, we have seen, especially in France, that Kosovo has become not just a route, but also a base for Islamic terrorists operating in Western Europe. These terrorists have been active in France and Germany in particular. The latest arrests made in France, Germany and also recently in Belgium confirm this. I call on you therefore not to make the same mistake with the Chechen movement, and to stand firm against Islamic terrorism. My group does of course support the accession of Russia to the European Union. Russia is a country with a Christian tradition and culture. The history, geography, customs and traditions of Russia mean that it clearly belongs within the European Union. Russia has much to contribute and her membership would help the process of renewal within the European Union. I think that we should support Russia as it develops a culture of democracy and respect for human rights.

  Belder (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, the partnership with the Russian Federation is placing heavy responsibilities on the EU. How to deal with the ambivalence of Moscow’s policy? This ambivalence is manifesting itself in openness to the outside world and growing uncommunicativeness at home.

Putin’s paradox can, harrowingly enough, be tellingly illustrated by the Chechen tragedy. The just war on terrorists is combined here with the dreadful disenfranchisement of an entire population group, including the muzzling of its own media on the subject.

What can the EU do about this constant mutual bloodletting on Russian territory? Little more, but also certainly no less than always having the Chechnya question on the agenda in the consultation with Russia. I was therefore pleased to hear the statement by Commissioner Patten of Tuesday 12 November. He said that the Danish Presidency had raised the situation in Chechnya both fully and forcefully at the summit with Russia. In this context I would ask Council and Commission to offer political backing to the OSCE mission in Chechnya.

I wish Council and Commission persistence in the search for a well nigh impossible political settlement between Russians and Chechens. At the same time the EU must be candid in raising with the Kremlin other evil manifestations of Putin’s political system of a 'guided democracy'. The list of Russian taboo topics of parliamentarian Yavlinsky can provide good service in this regard. Think for example of the attempts of the powers that be to silence agreeable politicians and other citizens or of corruption in the upper reaches of power.

Finally, I would like to stand up for full respect on the part of the EU for Lithuania’s sovereignty in the transit agreement concluded for Kaliningrad and the Russian Federation. Serious doubts about this have arisen on the Lithuanian side. I spent last week with an EP delegation in the United States. I took soundings in the press where I heard very many concerns from Lithuania about this settlement. Council and Commission, are these serious doubts on the part of Lithuania justified?

  Dupuis (NI). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President–in–Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we talk a lot about stability, but what type of stability are we intent on achieving? Are we aiming for the stability of Budapest in 1956 or the stability of Prague in 1968? We have heard Mr Marchiani try to pull the wool over our eyes. He delivered a completely racist, Christian fundamentalist speech, representing the antithesis of what we must do. What is currently at stake in Russia is democracy. The Chechen problem is being used by the oligarchs in Russia to bolster their power bases and specifically to prevent democracy from becoming a reality in Russia.

This is a problem we do not want to confront. We did not want to confront it either in the case of Kaliningrad. When all is said and done, we could have come up with more ambitious solutions. We could have responded positively to Mr Putin’s proposal for a common market, not just in goods and money, but also in people. We could have said yes, Mr Putin, on condition that you resolve the question of Chechnya, on condition that you resolve the nuclear question and on condition that you resolve the question of the freedom of the press in Russia. That would have been entirely possible. However, we prefer to let ourselves become obsessed with oil pipelines and with discussions with technocrats. The real issue is saving Chechnya, in order also to save the soul of Russia. Today we are moving in exactly the opposite direction.

I would like to ask Mr Paasilinna if, since he is going to Chechnya on 20 January, he could find an extra seat on the aeroplane and take Commissioner Nielson with him. After all, I together with Mr Posselt and others, have been calling for Mr Nielson to visit the country for around two years now. I would also like to ask the President–in–Office of the Council, since he claims the exchange of information on terrorism has improved, how we stand regarding the Deputy Prime Minister of Chechnya. The latter is still in prison in Denmark, even though the Russian charges against him appear to be absolutely derisory and entirely without foundation.

  Oostlander (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, we are becoming increasingly aware – and we are also acting accordingly – that fundamental changes have taken place in Russia. Fortunately we can now talk of constructive cooperation. We mention the northern dimension in this regard and all kinds of things that are in our mutual interest. We hear a great deal about this from our Finnish fellow MEPs in particular. Rightly so. There is also talk of the pursuit of a common European economic area. I think that this is a good thing, because with the enlargement of the European Union with so many Central European countries on the horizon, we must also look at what is happening on our borders. Do we have a clear policy with regard to adjoining areas, in particular Russia, the Ukraine and Moldova? We are going to have to devote some attention to this, so that we can continue to talk of regular cooperation.

The problems of Russia are mostly very clear to us. We have done our utmost to help bring the Kaliningrad problem to a successful conclusion. The Lithuanian Government in particular was of course very interested in this. I am therefore very pleased that President-in-Office, Mr Haarder – we did not expect anything else – in particular underlines the sovereignty of Lithuania. Yet I would also really like to know how things are going with the development of the solution of the Kaliningrad problem? If I have read the situation correctly, it is all tied up with an enormous number of technical issues. At a certain point Schengen comes into play and really we have to know at any point whether or not the arrangements with Russia are a hindrance for Lithuania. I think that we must make this a priority. Russia is large enough, it can look after itself. You have to stand up for a small country, especially if it has a history with Russia that is as tragic as that of Lithuania. I should like to see a situation in which, ultimately and in all fairness, the guidelines that continue to apply permanently give priority to Lithuania's sovereignty and interests.

I should also like to raise the problem of borders. The borders with Russia and for example Latvia. On this point ratification continues to be a long time coming. The reason why is unclear and at delegation meetings in Moscow we are told that it has no priority. This too is, in my view, another example of a big-country strategy: ‘the small fry will just have to wait’. I think that we as a European Community are well past this kind of thinking and that we must make clear to Russia that this authoritarian approach, even to the outside world, – internally it is already far too prevalent – comes across to us as very distasteful. If we help Russia with all kinds of problems, then Russia itself must be constructive too and say: okay, we are going to solve a problem with this candidate country immediately, we will ratify. In fact nothing else needs to happen.

I should now like to turn to the problem with Chechnya. It is very clear that even in Russian politics they are at a complete loss as to what to do. It has indeed changed to being first and foremost a war on terrorism, but the damage for the civilian population is so disproportionate that we cannot take it lying down. I think that it is very important for military people, possibly those from NATO and Russia, to talk about it – to ask why are you doing that, is there not another way – and in particular to keep hammering away with the message that a political solution will in the end be the only one that can finally bring peace.

  Lalumière (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President–in–Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would like to endorse the sentiments expressed by previous speakers in that I too am very pleased at the holding of the latest EU–Russia Summit and its outcome.

As regards the case of Kaliningrad, it is pleasing that a solution acceptable to the European Union and to Russia has been reached. I hope the Lithuanians will also find the agreement satisfactory. Clearly, without their support, the agreement will be meaningless.

I would like to focus on the economic, social and political future of Kaliningrad. The agreement includes a commitment by the European Union to provide technical and financial aid to the Russians to promote the economic development of the enclave. This is a very important commitment. The destabilising effects for the whole region of the under–development of the enclave would be frightening. Kaliningrad’s naval shipyards and all the maritime activities there are currently suffering from a severe economic downturn. As a result, the enclave is likely to remain a good location for all types of trafficking, and dissent among its population may develop. Commissioner, I implore the European Union to do everything possible to help the region recover from this stagnant state which is also threatening to engulf Poland and the Baltic States.

On the other issues, I fully support our partnership with Russia. But clearly this commitment should not make us deaf and dumb on the question of Chechnya. Candour is a mark of friendship and Europe takes a strong stance of talking about Mr Sakharov in the Kremlin.

Alongside this difficult and tragic issue, there is clearly an enormous amount of work to be done with Russia. This includes work on Foreign Affairs, and the Common Security and Defence Policy. Unlike Mr Marchiani, I do not envisage Russia’s accession to the European Union. This is not the problem. As regards security and defence however, though we are working hard on the relationship between Russian and NATO, we should also start to reflect on the relationship between European Security and Defence Policy and Russia. We will discuss this matter on another occasion.

  Thors (ELDR). (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, Russia is refusing to sign up to the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme in the Russian Federation, which would open the way for significant aid from the West to clean up nuclear waste in Russia, something which Commissioner Nielson also mentioned.

Russia is also refusing to sign the agreement regarding EUR 190 million, mostly in the form of a donation, for the construction of the South West Waste Water Treatment Plant in St Petersburg, which would improve water quality in the Gulf of Finland.

There has been no sign that Russia intends to ratify the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. This concerns pollutants which threaten humans and animals in northern Russia.

There is also no news on the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. We have every reason to believe that Russian interests have been implicated in the Prestige accident. Is Crown Resources a Russian company? Which Russian company was responsible for the 50 000 tonnes of oil on the tanker which had been loaded in St Petersburg?

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to put the following question to the Council and the Commission: Are our current tactics right whereby we are guaranteeing Russia’s position as a market economy and supporting the country before the WTO? It would seem that this carrot has not been enough. We need something stronger. It is time for the stick. I truly hope that, on the issue of cooperation in the area of economics, the environmental dimension will be taken up. We are doing everything we can, but the environmental dimension must not be forgotten. I hope that the examples I have listed convince you that our work has not been successful.

  Gahrton (Verts/ALE). (SV) Mr President, President Putin’s vulgar outburst in conjunction with the EU summit was not particularly surprising. He is desperate, because Russia’s situation is desperate. States in crisis are keen to find a scapegoat – in Russia’s case the Chechens. Naturally, we must condemn the Russian massacre in Chechnya, but we must not forget our own complicity in Russia’s tragedy.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western experts poured into Moscow, including Sweden’s Anders Åslund, and recommended shock therapy. In 500 days Russia was to do what China had been tackling for 25 years. The result was naturally mass poverty, a decline in production, lower average life expectancy and Mafia domination.

We should recognise our part in Russia’s crisis and Russia’s chaos. Therefore, we should also treat Russia in the same way that we treat other European countries such as Turkey, and make it clear that the country has the right, on the same terms as other European countries, to full EU membership if it so desires and if all the conditions are met.

  Souchet (NI). – (FR) Mr President, we need to be proactive in developing many different relationships with Russia on a number of strategic issues, from the fight against terrorism to the situation in the Middle East, from energy to space. It is taking a very narrow view of these relationships to want to index link them to the various ways in which the Russian Government is tackling the difficult question of Chechnya.

We are right to condemn the clearly disproportionate brutality of the methods used by the Russian authorities. However, we would get a better hearing if we did not ignore the real basis of Moscow’s reaction, which does not pertain solely to Russian concerns. The Russian Government is invoking its legitimate right to defence against attacks within the territory of the Federation. The country is being attacked by forces which, after stirring up a belief in Chechen separatism, intend to capture this sentiment and use it to the benefit of a type of radical Islam that is bringing terrorism right to the heart of Moscow. Who would dare to deny that Chechnya has become, after Afghanistan under the Taliban, one of the best training grounds for international Islamic terrorists who pose a threat to us all? Those who persist in denying these realities or who talk about them in relative terms are leading us towards deadlock. Mr President, we must be responsible and resist them.

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, as a Christian I feel ashamed at the way Mr Marchiani has misused the concept of Christianity. I do not regard the murder of Muslims as a Christian duty. Terrorism, arms trading and drug trafficking also exist in other states, including our own Member States. Nevertheless, no one is suggesting that we should simply be bombing those Member States, including Mr Marchiani's own country. We need to be clear about the fact that people are indulging in emotional manipulation here. We are certainly not talking about a war on terrorism – we are talking about the creation of terrorism.

The Chechens have been the victims of colonial persecution for 150 years. They were deported by Stalin. In the modern era, they have twice been overrun in brutal wars serving oil interests. Mr Putin's election campaign was one of the factors underlying the intensification of the second of these wars, which is still being waged.

So it has to be said for once and all that this is not a war on terror, it is more likely to encourage terrorists! We have a share in the responsibility for all this. So how have we reacted? The beautiful city of Copenhagen was boycotted by Mr Putin simply because the Danes exercised their democratic right to respect freedom of expression and freedom of association.

So why did the Council then shift to Brussels? Commissioner Nielson, who is responsible for humanitarian issues in Europe, has not announced that he is to visit Chechnya, but rather that he is to attend a banquet for Heads of State and Government in St Petersburg. Let me say this very clearly: it makes me sick to be part of a Europe that is sipping Crimean champagne in St Petersburg while people are bleeding to death on the streets of Chechnya.

I believe that Europe's most noble task is to advocate freedom and human rights. Yesterday we were celebrating the presence of our Baltic colleagues in our midst for the first time. Our colleagues from the Baltic states also owe their freedom to a Chechen, General Dudayev, who at that time refused to take part in the bloody repression of the Baltic freedom movement as he had been ordered to do as a Soviet officer!

(Applause)

  Poos (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, the outcome of the EU–Russia Summit was especially disappointing as regards human rights. The Prime Minister of Denmark, Mr Rasmussen, had the courage to remind Mr Putin that the conflict in Chechnya did not amount to a terrorism problem and that a political solution was needed. Mr Putin gave a frosty reply and that was as far as it went. When Europe had offered premature and uncalled–for congratulations on the use of banned chemical weapons on the hostages and hostage–takers in Moscow, it was not the moment to issue reprimands. Furthermore, the President of the Council had doubtless had his hands tied by his peers.

No more was said about possible sanctions, which had been on the agenda since the summit of 1999 with Mr Yeltsin. Since that time, the situation in Chechnya has dramatically worsened, and the civilian population of the region is powerless in the face of the actions of the special forces. Torture, rape, extra–judicial executions and disappearances are everyday occurrences. Those responsible for violations of human rights and war crimes act with complete impunity. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, why have you not, together with the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Commission, at least followed up the specific request of Amnesty International to allow access for the humanitarian organisations to Chechnya, under threat of sanctions? Why have you not insisted on establishing free access for the Red Cross to those people who are rotting in prisons or holding centres, the gulags of today? Now that all our partnership agreements contain a clause on human rights, why has international humanitarian law yet again yielded in spectacular fashion to the strength and reason of State?

  Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, this agreement appears to me to be very problematic, given the current conflict in Chechnya.

What is the situation in Chechnya? On the one hand, we have a people who are fighting for their freedom, and on the other we have a colonial power which is using every available means of oppression and repression on a continual basis. The article that has just been read to us demonstrates the state of mind of the Russian leaders. Furthermore, while the Council and the Commission state that human rights in Chechnya have been discussed, I think this is far from the case. Let us not mince our words. What is going on now in Chechnya is genocide. Entering into negotiations with the Russians when this genocide is being committed is questionable, even if legitimate interests in the Baltic States and elsewhere should be protected. The assertion that we have to come to an agreement on the fight against terrorism is also open to question. The terrorism of despair of the Chechen fighters is in no way comparable with the State terrorism practised by Russia. This is the reason why this agreement truly poses a problem.

  Kronberger (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present.

After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe's most important energy supply partner.

Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area.

Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia's economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.

  Gahler (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, last week in the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee we had an in-depth and critical discussion of the solution arrived at for Kaliningrad. Mr Haarder called the solution ‘balanced’, but I regard it as being, above all, balanced in terms of allowing Russia to save face and to please our own Schengen purists.

The Commissioner has told us that the European Union needs to secure its borders at all times and in all places. That is a statement that even Erich Honecker could have signed up to, because transit through Lithuania will be more difficult for passengers than transit from West Germany to west Berlin via East Germany was in the old days. I think the European Union should be hanging its head in shame to have agreed to this thirteen years after the wall came down.

The practical difficulties will be a matter for the Lithuanian border authorities and the passengers themselves. Russia will be able to exploit this situation for other purposes as well, because of the enormous potential for technical problems and the likelihood that those affected will complain.

Have you ever considered that the eastern end of these journeys is not in Russia at all, but in Belarus, a country that has not been mentioned in these discussions at all? So what would happen if relations between Russia and Mr Lukashenko deteriorated to the point that Mr Lukashenko decided to exploit this situation? The whole arrangement would then not even be worth the paper it was written on.

We can also easily imagine what will happen in practice when an application is made for a facilitated rail travel document. In an extreme case someone in Khabarovsk in eastern Russia would have to give his address with his ticket in the hope that everything would be forwarded to a central Russian office which would then send everything on to the Lithuanian authorities, which would in turn have to process everything on time, so that when the passenger on board the train arrives at the border the Lithuanian border official would hopefully have the transit permit for that passenger with him. However, it is all too easy to imagine how well all this will work in practice, given the administrative capacity of the Russian authorities. I therefore urge you to keep an eye on this problem and not to imagine that we can now assume that it has been dealt with.

  Haarder, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) It has certainly been a lively debate. I almost saw myself in the role of one of those Members of Parliament who demanded that now the Presidency should do this and that and pointed out that the Council had failed to do this or that or the other. That is how it should be, and I would call upon Parliament to continue to hold the Council to the democratic ideals on which Parliament is based.

I will not, moreover, continue now with a ‘but’. I will continue with an ‘and’, because I have always understood our common approach to mean that we must also be good neighbours, that we must also be able to solve common problems and that we must also have sufficient contact with each other to allow a dialogue, so that we can say the things that need to be said. I would say to Mr Posselt that if we are to move Russia in the right direction in the area of human rights, it is necessary for there to be a place where we can have a dialogue with Russia. This place existed a week ago in Brussels, but it makes no difference whether it is in Copenhagen or Brussels. We had the dialogue, the necessary things were said and Mr Patten was a witness. Mr Nielson has confirmed this today. The Council said exactly what had to be said to Russia, on the subject of Chechnya too.

With regard to Mr Zakayev, who is currently in custody in Denmark, I should like to tell Mr Dupuis that the Zakayev case is being dealt with entirely in accordance with the principles of the rule of law, in accordance with European extradition rules and in accordance with our established policy on combating terrorism. Not a single political decision has been taken in respect of Mr Zakayev. Everything has been done by the book. We have followed the textbook of democracy to the letter. The same applies, moreover, to the holding of the conference which created the conflict between Denmark and Russia. This conference was held because it is a democratic right to hold conferences. That is not something we can prevent, and we stand by that right, just as we have held firm in all other aspects to our democratic ideals. I completely agree that, as has been pointed out by Mr Poettering and many others, we must not sacrifice human rights on the altar of combating terrorism. Of course not. It was precisely this, moreover, on which the dialogue with Russia at the summit was based. We are in agreement on the fight against terrorism, but we are not in agreement in our appraisal of what has gone on, and is still going on, in Chechnya, and this was stated very, very clearly.

A solution was successfully found to the Kaliningrad problem, and one which respected the sovereignty of Lithuania and Lithuania’s right to accede to Schengen. The fact that we managed to solve a problem in the region around us in this way is very important for enlargement. Moreover, with regard to the yet to be ratified border agreement between Russia and Lithuania, I can state that, during the summit negotiations, the Presidency made it very clear to Russia that we are assuming that the border agreement between Russia and Lithuania will now be signed. So nothing was forgotten. There was nothing that we should be ashamed of. Everything was done by the book of democracy. Fortunately, the dialogue was maintained, and the problems which were to be solved at the summit were solved.

I would like, however, to end by saying that it is important for Parliament to hold fast to its ideals and take the Council to task if there is a risk of our not doing the same. Stick at it. I do not, however, think that there is any reason to admonish the Council or the Presidency for the way in which they handled this very difficult summit which has just taken place.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS CEDERSCHIÖLD
Vice-President

  Nielson, Commission. – Mr President, I shall start by saying very clearly that I can agree 100% with the statement just made by Mr Haarder. That is a good clear description of the reality. It is also a reminder of what the Union needs to do and how it needs to do it.

I have listened very carefully to all the contributions. I shall repeat what I have said before in Parliament when discussing the problem of Chechnya. The division of responsibility in the Commission is quite meaningful. If we were not careful in defining the tasks and responsibilities of the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid, we would blur the whole issue, especially when it comes to ensuring that access to delivering humanitarian aid is respected.

That is why I am very careful to give a clearcut definition of my responsibilities as the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid. If I were to fall into the temptation of engaging in political discussion on this issue, I would reduce the legitimacy and efficiency of my efforts to protect the access of humanitarian workers in places like Chechnya. That is why I resist becoming involved in political manoeuvres or political projects, even if I might sympathise with them. It is for the Commissioner on external relations to do that, and it is important, especially in this case, for us to be careful in our use of the instruments and commissioners available. If, with my responsibilities, I fell into the temptation of politicising, we would reduce the weight of our efforts and our attempts to insist on having access. I have, on the other hand, publicly criticised the Russians on that issue, and do so quite frequently. I feed elements of this kind into every summit that we have with Russia.

Unfortunately there has been no progress. There are the well-known issues of work permits for humanitarian workers, the ability to use the UN VHF radio system which is important for the safety of people moving around there and the situation of refugees and internally displaced persons in the camps. All these issues are raised over and over again, and I would repeat my call for Parliament to view the Commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid as keeping to a relatively narrowly-defined remit, which is what I do.

We have others who deal with the political side of the discussion. This is important not only as regards Chechnya, but also for many other places. You will see the same approach when we talk about accessing victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Being a political animal myself, I will not engage in a more substantive political discussion on the nature of the conflict and these other issues, however tempting that might be.

Mr Paasilinna and a few others raised the question of the energy dialogue with Russia, and especially cooperation in the area of natural gas. It is quite difficult to rush into a conclusion in an area where negotiating realities also have to reflect who engages commercially and who does not. The issue of the gas pipeline negotiation is a long-term one. There is a risk of contradictions between establishing the very long-term basis of those kinds of deals and the liberalisation of the gas market inside the Union, to which we would give priority. Against that background it is not that simple to accommodate the desire shown by the other side to have a very long-term, stable kind of contract as a basis.

In any case, it would not be for us but for the companies and the market to establish such a contract, which is another reason why things are not that simple. Furthermore there are other interesting strategic issues concerning the geopolitics of Europe's energy supply in the years to come, including issues relating to natural gas, and it is no surprise that this is a complicated and demanding question. For tactical reasons I would urge some caution as to how Members of Parliament pursue this issue. It may be worthwhile and important to ensure that we have long-term cooperation and supplies from Russia, but it is also important not to jump into negotiations that ultimately meant our not getting as good a deal as everyone thought we should. I would therefore advocate caution.

Finally, as regards Mr Oostlander's clear question about whether Lithuania can join Schengen after this agreement on Kaliningrad, this has been one of the defining points in our approach to negotiations. This is why we find the solution in which there are no complications of that nature to be a good one.

I will end by commending the cooperation between the Council and the Commission on this issue. This is one of the areas in which we have been quite successful. It is also something which has been duly recognised by Lithuania and which has certainly demonstrated to the other candidate countries that we take their situation seriously.

  Bethell (PPE-DE). – Madam President, there is a political dimension to this, which Mr Haarder mentioned. I had in mind the arrest of Mr Zakayev, the Chechen representative. Why has he been in prison for so long without any evidence being brought against him? This is a very worrying situation.

  Dupuis (NI). – (FR) Madam President, this is a long story. Chechnya has been suffering for three years now. Either Mr Nielson, appointed Commissioner for humanitarian aid, has someone he can denounce who is preventing him from doing his job, or he should resign, as there are not 36 solutions. This has been going on for three years, we have been asking him to go there for three years but he never responds to us. This is an intolerable situation! He must either resign or tell us who is preventing him from doing his job.

  Nielson, Commission. – I was there two years ago. My area of responsibility is not being neglected. We are continually working on this and also in relation to the UN initiative and as the main funder of humanitarian aid to Chechnya. We are, in fact, the only ones keeping funding activities alive and functional inside Chechnya.

I do not want to discuss my travel schedule here. For the reasons I gave previously, I remain resolved to avoid mixing up my main responsibility with general political work in this respect.

  Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Madam President, having heard the debate, I would like to draw your attention to a fact: following the terrorist action by Chechen rebels, 120 hostages have died, but also 50 terrorists. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, although we are talking about terrorists, there can never be any justification for an entirely summary execution such as that carried out by Russian troops when those people were probably fast asleep.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that no section of the press has spoken about this, which is very serious, because it is an offence against democratic and human co-existence – whether or not they are terrorists – and also to the fact that there has been no mention in this House of this action, which was outrageously barbaric.

  Haarder, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) I would just like to repeat to Lord Bethell that not a single political decision has been taken in Denmark concerning the imprisonment of Mr Zakayev. Some charges have been brought, which the Danish police have investigated. A judge has decided that Mr Zakayev is to remain in custody for a further period, but if it proves that the charges brought have no basis, then naturally he will be released again. That is how the judicial system works, and Lord Bethell can be certain that the Danish legal system functions in accordance with all the principles that we uphold in this Union.