President. The next item is the Council statement on the programme of the Irish presidency.

For reasons which I know you will understand, I am especially pleased today to be able to give the floor to An Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, on behalf of the Council.

(Applause)

  Ahern, Bertie, Council. A Uachtaráin, a chomhaltaí onóracha de Pharlaimint na hEorpa, a Uachtaráin an Choimisiúin, a dhaoine uaisle, is onóir agus cúis áthais domsa a bheith anseo inniu chun na tosaíochtaí d’Uachtaránacht na hÉireann a chur i bhur láthair.

Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, it is both an honour and a pleasure to be here today to present to you the priorities for the Irish presidency.

Before I make this presentation, may I thank you for the reception you gave the President of Ireland, Mrs Mary McAleese, during her visit last November. Your warm welcome to her was greatly appreciated in Ireland.

We have chosen 'Europeans – Working Together' as the theme of our presidency. It is a theme which captures a vision of the people of the European Union working as a partnership, striving together to achieve our common goals and objectives. We need the cooperation of everybody to achieve our ambitions. I know that I can count on the Members of the European Parliament to work with us during our term for the greater good of the European Union.

This is Ireland’s sixth presidency. We are taking on our task at an historic and challenging time, but we have prepared well for what lies ahead. The overriding objective of our presidency is to secure outcomes which have a positive impact on the lives of Europe’s people. Like every presidency, we aim to write another chapter in the success story that is the European Union.

This task deserves our full attention and we each have a part to play. Parliament is unique among the institutions in having a direct mandate from the people. It is central to an effective Union which is successful and which delivers. It goes without saying that a good relationship between the Council and Parliament is vital to the Union’s success.

The elections in June mean that the time in which we can work together will be shorter than usual. As a presidency, therefore, we are totally committed to working intensively with Parliament at all levels so that our interaction is as constructive and productive as it can be. President Pat Cox – of whose leadership of Parliament we in Ireland are enormously proud – has assured me that you stand ready to play your full part.

There is important work to be done. As Europeans working together, we must ensure that the Union can take advantage of the global economic recovery. We must create an environment which fosters more and better jobs for our people. We must take the measures necessary to allow our citizens to live and move freely throughout the European Union in safety and security. And we must ensure that the Union can play a positive and constructive role in the world.

The Irish presidency is the first to see the full implementation of the Seville European Council decisions aimed at ensuring a more coherent and strategic approach to our work. Our programme is, therefore, consistent with and reflects the priorities in the annual Operational Programme for 2004, prepared with the future Dutch presidency. It is also consistent with the Multiannual Strategic Programme for 2004-2006. The preparation of the annual and multiannual programmes with the Netherlands and with the four presidencies to follow has been both an innovation and a practical example of 'Europeans – Working Together'.

This is a time of historic change for the Union. We must be prepared for the future. We want a Union that is more democratic, more accountable, more transparent and more effective. We must ensure that the Union is, and is seen to be, as close as possible to its citizens. A new constitution is fundamental to this. The European Convention did outstanding work in bringing forward an excellent draft text. I pay warm tribute to all who contributed to its proceedings. In particular, I pay tribute to the representatives of the European Parliament who brought to the Convention not only great vitality, but also great insight. I fully understand the importance Parliament attaches to bringing the constitutional project to a successful and early conclusion. In my contacts with many of you here in Parliament since the Brussels European Council, we have made clear our strong support for a speedy and successful outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference.

(Applause)

You may rest assured that I have heard that message and I share your view.

I thank the Italian presidency for the good work it did during its term, and I want to thank it for the support and assistance it has given to our presidency. We all hoped that agreement could be reached last month and were disappointed when it was not. It now falls to Ireland to try to make further progress. We have taken up this challenge and we will do all in our power to see it through. We are determined to do whatever we can to encourage and facilitate the earliest possible agreement. It remains to be seen whether this will prove possible in our presidency. We know what the outstanding issues are. Various possible solutions have been proposed. But ultimately, if we are to arrive at the necessary compromises, what is needed is sufficient collective political will.

I am convinced that this is profoundly in the interests of the Union and its citizens, and indeed of the Member States individually – new and old, large and small. A new constitution would help the Union respond to the demands and expectations of its citizens. It would help the Union play a more coherent and effective role in the wider world. On the other hand, excessive delay will damage our credibility and weaken our standing. Stalemate is not an option any of us can contemplate.

I have undertaken to consult intensely and to make a report to the March European Council. That process of consultation is well under way. I have spoken to many of my colleagues in the European Council already. All of them have indicated their commitment to helping us find a way forward. I will continue to explore with them how and when this can be achieved. I want to be able to make the fullest possible report in March.

I can assure Parliament that if my consultations suggest that there is a real prospect of agreement, I will immediately move to seize the opportunity. I pledge to you again that the Irish presidency will spare no effort to make progress and to facilitate consensus during our term in office.

(Applause)

This issue will command the highest priority under our presidency.

The negotiations on the future financial perspectives will be critically important for the future shape and direction of the enlarged Union. We also look forward to initiating discussions once the Commission communication is tabled later this month. Our aim as the presidency will be to seek initial reactions from Member States and we will be working to secure agreement at the Spring European Council on the calendar and process for the negotiations.

The Irish presidency has begun in a Union of 15 Member States and will end in a Union of 25. It is a particular privilege to hold the presidency at a time when history is being made. We greatly look forward to welcoming the new members of the family at an official ceremony in Dublin on 1 May. We plan to make this a real welcome in Ireland. Community cultural events are being organised and real local involvement and international exchange will occur. We believe that the diversity of Europe’s cultural heritage is something to be shared and celebrated.

We want the formal enlargement of the European Union to be as smooth and successful as possible. Making enlargement work is of the greatest possible importance to us. Integrating the new Member States and ensuring that the Council continues to function effectively will be a high priority. We will press forward with the future enlargement agenda. We will prioritise work in relation to Romania and Bulgaria with the aim of concluding negotiations this year.

We also welcome Turkey’s efforts to fulfil the necessary criteria with a view to a decision to be taken at the European Council next December. I am convinced that the accession of Cyprus continues to provide the context for a comprehensive settlement, which would enable the accession of a united island on 1 May. We welcome the signs of progress in recent days. As the presidency, we will support fully the central role of the United Nations Secretary-General in this process. I urge all parties in the period ahead to demonstrate conclusively their commitment to negotiating a settlement on the basis of his proposals.

The newly enlarged Union must work for all its people. That is why the Irish presidency has placed sustainable growth and social cohesion at the very centre of its work programme. Four years ago in Lisbon, we agreed on the goal of making the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. The Lisbon Agenda is the best mechanism for achieving this goal in a demanding and competitive global context. It is the means by which the Member States and the European institutions can work together to develop the European economy, to create more employment, to ensure social protection and to invest in a sustainable future for us all.

Next year, we will be half way towards the 2010 target date set at the Lisbon European Council in March 2000. We have achieved a great deal already. We have seen advances in the areas of research and development, financial services, liberalisation of energy markets, telecommunications, environmental protection and regulatory reform. It is now much easier for workers and students to move around the European Union, to access jobs and education; it is easier to set up and run a small business; consumers are already enjoying cheaper telephone calls; significant studies have been made in terms of equality and social protection. And Europe’s commitment to the environment means a cleaner and safer world for our children and our grandchildren. Despite these achievements, it is increasingly clear that unless we increase momentum, we will not make Europe the most competitive economy in the world by 2010.

We intend to use the Spring European Council this year to give renewed focus and impetus to the Lisbon Agenda. We look forward in this context to the publication next week of the Commission's report on the Spring European Council. Positive signs of economic progress are emerging, both in Europe and internationally. It is imperative that we make the most of this. We must increase our efforts to implement at individual Member State level those reforms and legislative changes already agreed, if we are to reap the full social and economic benefits. We must also continue to implement further reforms. Maintaining the status quo will not improve Europe's economic standing, competitiveness or employment rates.

I have written to you, Mr President, and to my colleagues in the European Council, setting out my proposed approach and the key elements of the Lisbon Agenda, on which I intend to focus at the Spring European Council. Our primary focus is clear: sustainable growth and high-quality employment are our twin priorities.

It is my intention that, during the Spring European Council, we will have a real debate on the most pressing economic and social challenges facing Europe. Investment in physical and human capital, supporting higher rates of growth across the European Union economy and, equally, continuing to maintain macroeconomic stability are just some of the challenges.

A central challenge facing Europe continues to be competitiveness. While the internal market has indeed been one of the Union’s most important achievements, we see the further development of the services sector as the key motor of growth and job creation.

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing Europe, however, is the pressing need to create more and better employment. We welcome the focus and the practical, country-specific messages in the report of the Employment Taskforce which was chaired by Mr Wim Kok. Building on the employment guidelines, we will work with our European partners, Parliament and the Commission, to ensure that real progress is made.

Social dialogue will greatly assist us in addressing these challenges. During our presidency, I look forward to working with the European social partners, through the Tripartite Social Summit in March and in other ways, to boost their involvement in achieving the overall Lisbon goal.

Before leaving the Lisbon Agenda, I also want to point out that 2005 will offer a unique opportunity for a mid-point review of the overall process. How to stay on course to realise the Lisbon goal in the new climate represents a very considerable challenge. The Irish presidency will contribute to the process of setting up a meaningful evaluation of the Agenda, in cooperation with our partners, including the incoming presidency.

Over the past 50 years, we in Europe have created an area of peace and prosperity. We have also created a single market where our people can trade and do business without barriers. We must ensure that the freedoms we enjoy are not exploited by criminal elements for illegal gains. As a presidency, Ireland will work for the greatest levels of freedom, security and safety for all the people of the European Union.

In the justice and home affairs area, we will focus on the delivery of the outstanding requirements under the Amsterdam Treaty and the broader Tampere programme, as updated by subsequent European Councils. This will involve a wide-ranging agenda including asylum, immigration, police, judicial cooperation in criminal matters and civil law cooperation. The June European Council is likely to initiate an assessment of the achievements of the Tampere programme, with a view to launching a further development of the Union’s justice and home affairs policies. We will also focus on practical police cooperation. We will place emphasis on the fight against drugs and organised crime and on combating illegal immigration.

The range of foreign policy issues that the Union now deals with and the breadth and intensity of the Union’s contacts with its partners around the globe is truly extensive. The European Union is, in every sense, a global player. During our presidency, we will focus on a number of key areas, as well as ensuring the effective conduct of the Union’s international commitments. We are committed to working ever more closely with the United Nations. We want in particular to support the UN Secretary-General's reform effort and will work to shape a positive and progressive European Union input into the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

I welcome Parliament's decision to award the Sakharov Prize to the Secretary-General of the UN. Mr Kofi Annan's participation in the plenary session of the European Parliament later this month sends out a clear message. That message is that effective multilateralism is a core value which informs the Union’s foreign policy. The Council will be represented by Foreign Minister Cowen on this important occasion.

We will also work to advance EU-UN cooperation in crisis management. The European Union and the United Nations are natural partners. Under the Italian presidency, the Union signed a declaration with the UN on cooperation in crisis management. The challenge for our presidency is to put this declaration into practice.

European Security and Defence Policy is how the Union's contribution to conflict prevention and crisis management. As a presidency, we will also progress work on the Union's crisis management capabilities. Europe will work with the world community to fight the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to promote disarmament.

Our presidency will be practical and imaginative in promoting human rights around the globe. During our presidency, we will adopt the EU guidelines to support human rights defenders. We also intend to implement the EU´s Strategy on Children in Armed Conflict.

Last year saw serious tensions and disagreement over Iraq, both across the Atlantic and indeed within Europe. The world is a better and a safer place when the European Union and the United States work together, pooling their considerable energy and resources to achieve our shared goals based on our shared values. The United States has stressed the importance it attaches to working with key partners, including Europe. We will continue to focus EU-US relations on what we can and should achieve together. Our aim will be to consult and cooperate with the United States on the broad range of issues, both political and economic, that face us all. We intend to work particularly closely with the United States on areas such as the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan and effective multilateralism, as well as on the extensive trade and economic agenda. We will not always see eye to eye, but we can and should concentrate on those areas where our cooperation is to the mutual benefit of our citizens and the wider international community.

The European Union values its relationship with the Americas as a whole. This is reflected in the fact that the European Union will have summit meetings with the US, with Canada, with Latin American and Caribbean countries during our presidency. These meetings will provide key opportunities to strengthen our relationships.

In the Middle East, we will continue to promote the implementation of the roadmap as the basis for progress towards a just and lasting two-state solution. Our participation in the Quartet will be based on this principle and we will work closely with our partners in an effort to move the peace process forward. Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Brian Cowen, in his capacity as President of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, travels to the Middle East this evening.

Enlargement gives renewed impetus to the Union’s strategic relationship with Russia. Our security and well-being are increasingly intertwined and we need to work effectively together. The EU-Russia Summit during our presidency is an opportunity to set a course for our future relationship.

In the conflict prevention area, we want to focus, in particular, on the role of non-governmental organisations and civil society in conflict prevention. We also want to integrate support for conflict prevention into our engagement and dialogue with the rest of the world. This is particularly relevant in the case of Africa. There are 290 million people living below the poverty line in sub-Saharan Africa. An estimated 30 million are infected with HIV/AIDS. Over a dozen conflict situations make this humanitarian crisis even worse. We must work with our African partners to find comprehensive solutions to these problems. Our overriding approach as a presidency will be to support African-led initiatives to tackle the enormous challenges the continent faces.

I would like to see greater convergence between foreign and development policy and this will form part of our approach as a presidency. The Union has a critical role to play in responding to major developing challenges such as poverty alleviation, the fight against infectious diseases and environmental degradation. The Union must set an example in relation to the progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and the creation of a fairer and more stable world order.

We also need to extend to our near neighbours the conditions of security, stability and prosperity that we enjoy in the European Union. After enlargement on 1 May, there will be 385 million people living in the countries on the external land and sea borders of the Union. Through our European neighbourhood initiative, we will enhance relations with those countries to the east and south on the basis of the values of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.

The Union has reached a shared understanding with the countries of the Western Balkans that their future lies within the European Union. As a presidency, we are committed to the full implementation of the agenda agreed last June at the EU-Western Balkans Summit in Thessaloniki. The rate at which progress is made now depends on the democratically elected governments of the region. The Union will strongly support their efforts as they pursue wide-ranging and difficult reforms.

We are also committed to a multilateral approach to trade policy. Since Cancun, the European Union has been reflecting on the way forward in order to achieve a successful relaunch of the Doha Development Agenda. A successful conclusion to the current round of trade talks is vital for long-term economic growth and development in the world. The presidency will work in the Council and with the Commission to achieve balanced progress in the negotiations.

The Union's relations with Asia are a key element of our agenda. Our engagement will be at all levels in the region. We will pursue political dialogue with the full range of countries, including an Asia-Europe meeting at foreign minister level in April. We would also hope to hold an EU-Japan Summit during our term.

As I have already stated, the Irish presidency looks forward to working closely with Parliament in the coming months. It is essential that we cooperate effectively and that we get down to work immediately. There is a range of important dossiers which require close cooperation if they are to be satisfactorily progressed in the time available to us. The discussions on the Members’ Statute are of particular concern. I pay tribute to President Cox for his personal commitment to bringing closure to these discussions. The Parliament vote, in December, provides the basis for us to move forward together to achieve an agreement which has eluded our institutions for too long. The Irish presidency hopes to conclude this matter rapidly and is doing all in its power to deliver a positive outcome.

As we move further into the 21st century, I have no doubt that the Union will continue to develop and to grow, to broaden and to deepen. The Union must meet new challenges and exploit new opportunities that lie ahead. There will continue to be healthy debate and differing perspectives among us. We will continue to work to accommodate this enriching diversity. We must tackle these challenges and embrace these opportunities together, united by our shared interest in the success of the Union.

The founding fathers were inspired by the dream of a future in which Europeans would never again fight each other to the death over resources, over territory or over their beliefs; a future in which Europeans would never again be divided from each other. This year will see that dream – a Europe whole and healed – brought closer to reality.

The founding fathers dreamt also of a Europe in which ever-closer cooperation would deliver greater security and prosperity for its people. I stand before you as a firm believer in that dream. I come from a country where membership of the European Union – a Union which we have helped to shape – has enabled us to develop and to flourish to our fullest potential. I profoundly wish the same for the incoming Member States.

Six months is not a long time. But I promise you an Irish presidency that will not stint in its efforts to achieve as much as is possible in this time. I greatly look forward to cooperating closely with our partners and with the institutions of the Union, especially with the European Parliament.

Our agenda is demanding and complex. We have begun our work with ambition and with humility. We call on everyone to help us with this challenging task for the six months ahead. We know that, as Europeans, our strength is our unity. We achieve more, and we are at our very best, as 'Europeans – Working Together'.

(Loud applause)

  Prodi, President of the Commission. (IT) Mr President, Prime Minster Ahern, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the best way of opening this debate is to make final assessment of the future, given that events of future months will shape the course of the Union for many years to come. I am referring to the key institutional events, such as the parliamentary elections in mid-June and the completion of this Commission’s mandate at the end of October. Furthermore, negotiations are about to start on establishing the Union’s future Financial Perspective, and the Commission will soon be presenting its proposals. Finally – and here I am moving on to the issues that I will discuss today – this Presidency will see the completion of enlargement and progress will have to be made on the Constitutional Treaty and on our strategy for growth. So, ladies and gentlemen, the best wishes that we have exchanged over the last few days are especially valuable and I am sure that Mr Ahern and his colleagues will employ all their determination and ability to ensure that this Presidency is a successful one.

I will start my brief speech by referring to enlargement. After years of meticulous preparation, 1 May 2003 will really be a day of celebration. I am glad that these celebrations will be centred on Dublin, because the Irish people are known for their exuberance and conviviality. I am pleased that this celebration will be geared towards young people in particular, from whom we have a lot to learn, especially in times of difficulty when there seems to be a lack of enthusiasm about the future. Enlargement will bring about significant changes for all our institutions. At a practical level, work will continue on the internal organisation of the Commission, and I will report back to you on this in good time. Furthermore, I am stepping up my consultations with the governments of the new Member States in order to appoint new Commissioners. Work is progressing very quickly and so I can confirm that at the end of February – as early as was called for by Parliament – I will let you have the names of the Commissioners so that you can duly proceed to the hearings that have been proposed. The aim is, of course, to integrate the new members of the College as from 1 May 2004, after they have been approved by Parliament.

The celebrations in Dublin will be a symbolic moment, which will open up new horizons. This monumental step is like a mountain pass: when we get there, a new landscape will of course unfold before us. We will see the final frontiers of the Union, which will be complete when it welcomes the countries of the Western Balkans. From this height we will be able to see the new neighbours of the enlarged Europe with whom, as Mr Ahern mentioned, we want to create an area of cooperation, stability, security and peace. We have already embarked upon this task with the circle of friendly countries, which increases the possibility of far-reaching and systematic cooperation with the European Union from the Mediterranean to Russia.

We propose the European model as a way of structuring relations between countries outside of Europe; everyone is hugely interested in this model: in Asia, in Latin America, everywhere. In recent years, the world, which has become less secure, has gone through a period of profound uncertainty. I am therefore pleased by the call from the Irish Presidency to promote strong and effective multilateralism, respect for human rights and conflict prevention: these principles are European principles. The Union must indeed strengthen relations with the United Nations and try to find more common ground with all the major players on the world stage, starting with the United States and Russia, and thus we are right on track. We must work together with the Member States to help Secretary-General Kofi Annan – whom we will meet in two weeks time – to push ahead with the reform of the United Nations, an organisation that we want to be strong, effective and present wherever peace is under threat, where people are in need of aid, where human rights need protecting.

Ladies and gentlemen, threats to security and world peace are not posed simply by armed conflicts and groups that are prepared to fight to achieve their goals. Whilst we must show determination in opposing and neutralising terrorist organisations, conflict situations must be resolved at political level. I therefore agree with the proposals made by the Irish Presidency to concentrate Union measures on humanitarian aid, respect for human rights and on the political, economic and social factors that fuel war and violence.

I would now like to turn briefly to the issue of the Constitutional Treaty, which was the thorniest issue on the agenda of the Presidency that has just concluded. Firstly, I would like to say how satisfied I am with the Presidency’s announcement that the work of the Intergovernmental Conference will begin again. For the Commission, adopting this Constitution is an absolute priority: both the Irish and the Dutch Presidencies can count on our continued support. 2004 must be the year of the European Constitution. The December summit clearly showed that the existing stumbling blocks would not be insurmountable if the Member States made a further effort to extend the consensus – which was huge – on the Convention’s proposals. If this development occurs – and I know that Mr Ahern is a master of patience and persuasion – then agreement may not be far away. The cost of slowing down the process of integration is too great. Clearly, there are risks involved in any situation and the Commission insists that we all move together towards a form of integration that is more solid and which enjoys broader agreement. If the efforts to this end were to fail repeatedly – and I do hope that this does not happen – then we could not, of course, oppose better solutions from other quarters but, I repeat, this does not apply to the historic phase in which we are currently working: we are now working towards us all having a Constitution shared by all the Member States.

Mr President, I would like to finish my speech with the European measures for economic growth, to which you referred very clearly. On this subject, your programme contains a wealth of ideas and is also ambitious; it could not be otherwise, since this Presidency will host the Spring Summit, which is the main meeting to set out the economic strategy. After several difficult years, the economy finally seems to be picking up: not too enthusiastically, but at least there has been some improvement. The climate is becoming favourable to stimulating economic activity. This is not the place to repeat any analysis of the objectives set out in the Presidency’s programme – which will, I guarantee, receive the Commission’s full support – and so I will just give a brief review of the ideas underlying the strategy in question.

The Spring Council will continue in the direction outlined in the Lisbon strategy, which remains the only basis that will allow Europe and its economy to maintain – I am not saying to increase, simply to maintain – its prosperity, security, social justice in a globalised world. The Commission will, therefore, make its proposals and the Council will take its decisions; no decision will be able to bear fruit until the decisions become real policies at national level, and so we need the cooperation of the Member States to be harmonised. The key priorities must be knowledge and innovation, that is to say, a single priority: human resources, full stop. That is the priority. Investment in education, lifelong learning and in research are not theoretical problems, but an objective that must be pursued at once because our international competitors are overtaking us, or have already done so. We must, therefore, step up our efforts to become a knowledge-based economy.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we look beyond the here and now, it is clear that our growth depends primarily on developing human resources and knowledge. I would again like to stress the need to create research centres of excellence in Europe and at world level, or even better, that are the best in the world. They must be the tangible and fundamental symbol of our belief in the future, that – as Mr Ahern said – the future is something we can shape and make happen. National strategies alone will not produce cutting-edge research; we need a strategy for the continent, we need the whole of the Union to pull together. Our continent must once again become what it was for centuries: the reference point for researchers across the world. We must put in place measures to allow young people who are currently specialising elsewhere to return to Europe when they have completed their studies. There is no point in me giving you facts and figures: here the issue is that hundreds of thousands of people are educated here and go elsewhere, or are educated elsewhere and go elsewhere. We are thus out of the loop of cultivating human resources in the world: either we re-enter it or the Lisbon strategy will not be fully achieved. There is only one way forward possible: fundamental research and disseminating education throughout the European workforce. Our young people must be able to find opportunities to study, work and be successful in Europe: that is their right. I say this not only for the sake of young people, but also because their success is the key to our own survival. This must, therefore, be the aim of our policies and our effort to meet the expectations of the people of Europe.

(Applause)

  Poettering (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, just before Christmas the political group chairmen had an opportunity to speak to the then-incoming Irish Presidency: with the Taoiseach, Foreign Minister Brian Cowen and the Minister for Europe, Dick Roche. I can tell you that the meeting was professional, efficient and amicable. I think this bodes very well for a successful Irish Presidency and by happy coincidence we have an Irish President of the European Parliament. I would also like to mention Gerard Collins, the co-chairman of an important group here in the European Parliament, who we first met when he was still Foreign Minister. The Irish Presidency of the time performed excellently, and I wish you every success in the coming six months as well.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you mentioned the Constitution. For my group, for the European People’s Party section of it, the Constitution is the number one priority. The Constitution project cannot be allowed to fail simply because the Brussels Summit was unsuccessful. You will have our full support if you manage to resolve matters during the Irish Presidency.

(Applause)

Everyone needs to move into action now. We in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats may support the principle of double majority for decision-making in the Council of Ministers, but it cannot now be considered a fundamental principle whereby we say that if it is not accepted, the whole Constitution project will fail – certainly not. The Constitution is so important a subject that we must move towards one another. A compromise must be found, and we need everyone to work together to that end.

(Applause)

Then there is the discussion about ‘core Europe’ or a two-speed Europe. I would advise against any such discussion. It is inherently wrong. How would a core group work? How would a two-speed Europe work? It is the wrong approach, but it is also seen as a threat to make certain governments move in a particular direction. Let us stop talking about a two-speed Europe, let us create this Constitution and move forward together.

(Applause)

Mr President-in-Office, the elections for the European Parliament fall during your Presidency. The Convention’s draft Constitution says – although of course it is not yet in force – that the results of the European Parliament elections will be taken into account when the Commission President is appointed. I do not know whether your Presidency will actually make a proposal for the office of Commission President at the end of June, after the elections. I can only encourage and ask you to respect the results of the European Parliament elections if you do. It is a question of principle. Our group is not willing to repeat the events of 1999, when one side won the elections and the other side took up offices in the Commission. This time the results of the European elections must be taken into account. The Commission as a whole must be balanced. As President of the Commission – you are laughing, and I am always pleased to see you happy –you are already being asked for your opinion, even now, on the subject of appointing the ten Commissioners from the accession countries. Please ensure that there is a cross-party political balance when you appoint the Commissioners.

(Loud applause)

Mr President-in-Office, you went on to speak about our relationship with the United States of America. Let me underline everything you said. We do not want to be the United States’ lackeys, but neither are we her rivals. We want to be partners with the United States, with equal rights, speaking on an equal footing with our American friends, and on many issues we share common goals. Anyone who believes that Europe has to be defined by contrast with the United States not only has it wrong in treating the United States, as it were, as an enemy, but would also split Europe itself, because we have different views on how we should structure our relationship with the United States. Consequently, I can only advise that we consider ourselves partners and equals of the United States. It is up to us to establish that equality. Rather than constantly criticising American dominance, we should do our utmost to ensure we, as Europeans, are united, and then we will be on an equal footing with the United States. This does not mean that we ought not to criticise our American friends at all. For example, I consider the current situation in Guantanamo Bay unacceptable. No one on this earth – no terrorist, no one – should be without rights. Everyone in the world is subject to a system of law. We should tell our American friends so. Please include it in all documents we exchange with them.

(Applause)

The same holds true for Chechnya. We are always told: yes, yes, we have talked to the Russian President about Chechnya. We would like to see it in black and white: a statement that Chechnya will also be dealt with, that we will intervene to uphold human rights and that we also have the courage to address world leaders – or those who consider themselves as such – on such matters. So my request to you is: give human rights a chance, again by referring to them in documents and agreements. This applies both to Guantanamo Bay and to Chechnya.

Let us respect one another: the small respecting the large, the large respecting the small, the majority respecting minorities. Europe can only work if we understand others, and if we respect one another. There should be no domination, and I thought it would be good to ask, in all modesty, everyone to do their bit. That is exactly what we need. Everyone needs to do their bit for a united Europe. Our group will stand alongside you. We wish you every success.

  Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, Taoiseach, céad míle fáilte, which according to my poor Gaelic means ‘a hundred thousand welcomes’: you are more generous than the Spanish, who say buenos días in the plural.

I would like to welcome the arrival of the Irish Presidency, because fate and the timetable have placed you right at the European Union’s important political crossroads. It was you who began the process – while I was President of the European Parliament – in Dublin, in March 1990, which led to Maastricht, you played a decisive role as the Presidency in relation to the Stability Pact and now you have an enormous responsibility.

As well as participating in the Conference of Presidents, in December, the Bureau of my group last week visited Dublin and we had the opportunity to hold a full debate with the Taoiseach and the Irish Government; I would like to say, on behalf of my group that we finally have a reliable, experienced and serious interlocutor.

Following what we have just experienced – a Presidency full of political extravagances and boasting in the media – I believe this is a very significant step forward. We can have faith in you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council. I personally went to ask you to support us in the Convention – you are not from my political family – but you supported us in this challenge from the outset. As well as having experience – since being negotiator of the Single Act and participant in the subsequent reforms of the Treaties – you know what you are talking about and have demonstrated your seriousness.

With regard to the Constitution, I would like to note, firstly, the decisive attitude of the Irish Presidency, a prudent but firm attitude – festina lente, as the Latins said, (we must press forward slowly and prudently) – and I hope that you can present us with proposals in March. I do not want to enter into controversial territory, I believe that Parliament’s position has also been prudent, firm and serious and I hope that with the Irish Presidency we manage to unravel this extremely important issue. Because a Constitution is absolutely essential to us if we are to consolidate an enlarged Europe and make it work in a democratic manner.

I have taken good note, Mr President, of the Taoiseach’s comments on the Members’ Statute, which my group sees as a question of constitutional dignity.

The second important challenge is economic. The President has talked about an issue which is very important, and in relation to which Ireland offers an example to the current Union and to the enlarged Union, which is the implementation of the Lisbon strategy. In other words, achieving, as we Socialists believe, full employment, gender equality – I would like to welcome the fact that the Irish Government has been the first to appoint a female Ambassador to Coreper, thereby entering into the most sexist realm of the Union, I congratulate it – social cohesion and technological development.

You can also set a good example in terms of solidarity, because we are now going to begin to renegotiate the financial perspectives, because ultimately, if we are going to get married we must also talk about the dowry and the marriage settlements, and that is where we are going to see solidarity. In this regard, I would like to say, Mr President, that we naturally support the proposals from the Commission which at least maintain the current effort. We cannot set many more objectives while providing fewer resources and it is not acceptable for one or several governments to tell us that in order to do many more things we must provide much fewer resources. We must respect the work of the Commission and its responsibility, and I hope that it makes proposals as soon as possible, and that the Irish Presidency can interpret them. We must also provide a future for the Stability and Growth Pact.

With regard to international policy, I would like to stress two elements: one is the President-in-Office of the Council’s insistence on the value of human rights at world level and the importance of Kofi Annan’s visit, because it is an affirmation of Europe's attachment to multilateralism. I believe that the Irish Presidency also has the capacity and experience to take this forward.

Finally, Mr President, an important issue, since we are in an election campaign and my distinguished colleague, Mr Poettering, has raised the issue. I believe that the important thing, from the point of view of the European Parliament and democracy in Europe, is that the Irish Presidency applies the Simitis-Cox Agreement to the letter, taking the form of an exchange of letters, according to which the Council will have to propose the candidate to the Presidency of the Commission after the European elections. As far as that we are all in agreement and I hope that the Irish Presidency will comply with it.

With regard to the European elections, the issue is open, nobody has won them and I would like to ask my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the technical group of European conservatives, to explain to me what you have in common with the British Conservatives in relation to Europe. There are no majorities here. Majorities, in European democratic systems, when there are no absolute majorities, are created on the basis of programme agreements. I accept that you advocate a conservative programme, and we advocate a progressive programme, but everything is open and we are all going to win the elections, or at least we will also be winners.

(Applause)

  Watson (ELDR). – Mr President, President-in-Office, at the beginning of the last century, a disgruntled writer from Dublin went to live in Italy. He wrote a famous novel in Trieste, a city that some years after his death came to mark the southern end of a line which divided our continent for half a century. This year, under this Irish presidency, that line will finally be erased. History, as Stephen Daedelus reminded us in James Joyce's Ulysses, is a nightmare from which we are trying to awake.

The Irish presidency is right to focus on enlargement. It is an historic moment: the final act of the revolutions of 1989. It is appropriate that a country which speaks for the transformative power of the European Union should oversee that process. But we should not be tempted to believe that we can separate enlargement from agreement on the instrument designed to make that step possible. Integrating the new Member States into the Lisbon process and Schengen cannot hide the fact that without the additional framework of a new constitutional settlement we are simply changing the oil in a Union which needs a new engine. Liberals in this House welcome the Taoiseach's strong commitment to advancing the work of the IGC. December's tempers have cooled. Europe's destiny is in an altogether safer pair of hands. This time, Europe's leaders must choose to succeed.

My Group also welcomes the presidency's intention to sustain the momentum of enlargement by concluding accession talks with Romania and Bulgaria and by responding to the request from Croatia. We, too, see this as the moment to achieve an historic settlement with Cyprus.

The presidency also rightly focuses, too, on the Lisbon Agenda in what can only be called its hour of need. Most of the structural problems identified at Lisbon remain obstacles to wealth creation. The political will needed to undertake reform and give the eurozone credibility has not yet clearly been summoned. The Celtic tiger has long stood for the benefits of competitiveness and economic discipline. Now it is time for you to roar in the Council. We welcome the commitments on the Framework Directive on Services, published by the Commission yesterday, and on the Financial Services Action Plan. We welcome the commitment to work with the European Parliament to secure the adoption of the Trans-European Networks proposals. But your modesty about what you can achieve must not obscure the need to resurrect the Growth and Stability Pact in some form under this presidency.

The presidency's assessment of our agenda abroad is also sound. We welcome the focus on African issues, on the holocaust of AIDS and poverty and hunger. We accept the need to work constructively with Russia, although we expect hard words on Chechnya and on Russia's vanishing political pluralism. We welcome the attempts to rebuild bridges in our transatlantic friendships. But here the Council's loyalty to European values means that Guantanamo Bay must be on the agenda of the EU-US Summit. The EU must act together to demand conscionable treatment for all detainees in Camp Delta, including the Europeans who have now been held for two years without charge. I welcome, Mr President-in-Office, your commitment to review justice and home affairs in the Union. I hope you will not overlook the worrying Amnesty International report on human rights within some of our own member countries.

My Group welcomes the presidency's political commitment to take the Statute for Members forward. That commitment must now be carried through into reform by both Parliament and the Council so that the statute can enter into force after the elections.

Mr President-in-Office, your work programme is a worthy one. If my Group could offer you a slogan for it, it would be 'restoring belief'. Deliver a deal on the Constitution and see in enlargement and you will have done Europe, and Ireland, proud. Carry that spirit through to the European elections in June, to a pan-European campaign with a continental consciousness rather than 25 national campaigns, and history will give you rich reward.

(Applause)

  Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, when observers talk about the difficulties that the Irish Presidency is going to face, they all stress the fact that the constitutional process is deadlocked. I fear that this will mean that we will not see the wood for the trees. To my mind, what happened at the Brussels summit and its conclusion were only symptoms of a deeper problem: the lack of a common plan, or in any case of a plan with which Europeans can identify.

The challenge that we now have to meet is more ambitious, much more ambitious than seeking a compromise of power between two black sheep in the European Council. It is to dare to go beyond what is left unsaid, the soothing proposals, the Community hangover, and dare to call a spade a spade and a crisis a crisis. Being critical is a rare commodity in both the Council and the Commission.

This is why I am convinced that our fellow citizens would appreciate the major change of talking truthfully and responsibly about what is not working properly in the Union and calling for changes. There are currently numerous examples of such taboos that need to be lifted. I will just mention three of them that are particularly fundamental.

First of all, there are the crises of the euro and the stability pact, because the two problems are linked. The creation of the European currency was supposed to stimulate growth, promote employment and strengthen the Union in relation to its main competitors. What has happened so far? The economy is sluggish, there is massive unemployment and the euro zone is unflinchingly enduring Washington’s predatory monetary policy. This must change. The solutions to this that have been put forward do not seem to be credible to me or seem to be no longer credible. We are also being told that the Lisbon strategy is going to have new momentum. But where has all the momentum that we have had for nearly four years got us to in terms of growth and employment?

Great importance is also attached to major projects. There is no doubt that they correspond to very real needs, but by mainly using private capital, the scope of them is being significantly limited. The President of the EIB, Philippe Maystadt, acknowledges that the private sector (and I quote) ‘is interested as long as the projects are sufficiently profitable’, there is no secret about that. He goes on to say, to quote him again, that ‘the expression ‘growth initiative’ can lead to confusion. It is in no way a measure for trying to encourage a restart in the short term’.

These are the circumstances under which the stability pact is supposed to continue as if there were no negative effects on public spending, as if it were to be aimed, as we would like, at renovating hospitals for example or developing research. Commissioner Solbes is going to bring before the ECJ those States that have committed the crime, of – and I quote, ‘replacing a system based on respecting rules with a system based on political decisions’ – as if this crisis in the EU were not forcing us to review the rules and launch into detailed political discussions. This must change.

(Applause)

The second example of a crisis, which is quite significant, is that of the financial perspectives, and therefore of the solidarity policy at the time of enlargement. It was the Commission that, several months ago, triggered the former. On the basis of the famous Sapir report, drawn up at its request, it took responsibility for accrediting the unacceptable idea of a reduction in the Structural Funds after 2006.

More recently, the shameful initiative of the six richest countries in the EU drove the nail in: freezing the budget at 1 per cent of Gross Domestic Product from 2007, at a time when we are preparing to welcome ten new countries whose income per inhabitant is lower than half the average for the Fifteen. As there is no possibility in their minds of calling into question, the principle of the UK style refund, extracted twenty years ago by the ‘Iron Lady’, it is the solidarity funds that will provide the adjustment variable. Will we discuss this matter on 1 May, at the enlargement celebrations? If we want to make a success of this major project, this too is a factor that needs to be changed.

Finally, there is well and truly a crisis in terms of the EU’s external action. One year after the major clash of choices at world level regarding Iraq, we have gained a great deal of experience. We now know that a State lied about weapons of mass destruction. We now know that a major power can win a war alone but is powerless to win peace. We also know that the occupation of Iraq is in fact feeding the terrorism that it was supposed to overcome. Everyone now knows all of this, but the Union is incapable of saying so and of learning lessons from it. This must change.

In the Middle East, which is urgently appealing for us to reinvigorate Europe’s role, the building of the annexing wall, stone by stone, is giving rise only to tentative statements. What are we doing to protect the Palestinian people? What are we doing to support the courageous efforts of Israeli and Palestinian figures who are unprecedentedly working to restart dialogue and negotiations? What are we doing to speed up the international conference planned in the route map? To be honest, we are doing very little. This must change.

My group sees all of these expectations of Europe that are being expressed in different regions of the world as an excellent opportunity that we should grasp. I am thinking of Latin America, where democracy is emerging, which is standing up to the hegemonic designs of the White House and is seeking genuine partners who respect its identity and sovereignty. I am thinking of the most heavily indebted countries which, given the obvious failure of initiatives from international financial institutions, are suffocating, with no concern from the international community. I am thinking of our partners who were disappointed in the Barcelona process, whose grievances we need to listen to so that we can restart Euro-Mediterranean and, more generally speaking, Euro-Arab relations.

May the Irish Presidency, An Taoiseach, take strong action in these different areas that can bring to life the image of a Europe that listens more to the criticism it receives and the hopes that it raises. This is what I see as your greatest task.

  Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we have to ask ourselves a very simple question: is Europe as a whole sustainable? When I say ‘we’, I mean the Council, the Commission, Parliament. I have heard some astounding things in this Chamber. I hear that Europe is a success story – how nice – and that we have an historical opportunity – how nice. Then, Mr President-in-Office, you said how wonderful it is that the Convention has done excellent work. To which my response is: take it, if it is so good. Do not bother about the 82 outstanding Italian Presidency points – an illusion, forget them! Then you can say: forget Mr Blair’s ‘red lines’. The Convention has done an excellent job, so let us get on with it. Next, along comes Mr Poettering and says we have to compromise. Of course there will have to be compromises – but based on what? Based on self-interest, thereby making Europe unsustainable? The principle of double majority is not a mythical creature. We have to decide for once and for all whether Europe will be capable of taking decisions in the future. If individual states have the power to block decisions, making them will no longer be viable. If you want applause from the Spaniards, perhaps you could explain to me how Europe can have an effective decision-making process using approaches such as those suggested by Mr Aznar. His proposal will not allow effective decision-making. That must be acknowledged now, or else there is little point in continuing.

(Applause)

The discussions in the Chamber did not end there. Mr President-in-Office, you spoke of Lisbon, of being prepared for the future, of social cohesion – all excellent. Then we read a letter from a Mr Schröder, a Mr Blair, a Mr Chirac, and someone else, a Dutch Prime Minister, which says that Europe is expanding, but will have less money. That is the most creative economics I have ever seen! If you expand, you pay less: how is that for logical reasoning? And yes, I will tell Mr Fischer so. Mr Poettering, perhaps you could ask your own ministers, Mr Schäuble and Mr Lamers, who thought up this two-speed Europe? It was not some stupid Social Democrat or Communist: it was your very own Mr Schäuble, potentially the next Federal President of Germany, and he did it in order to keep Spain and Italy out of the euro. That is the true history of two-speed Europe.

(Applause)

Your own Helmut Kohl also did his bit, with the Schäuble/Lamers paper. You seem to rewrite history as it suits you. While I have the floor, let me add the following: Mr Poettering, you stood up in this House and said, ‘we will not allow it’. You will have to accept whatever the majority in this House votes for. Either

(Applause)

you will have the majority or we will, and the President of the Commission will be appointed accordingly. You may be the largest group, but you are far from being the majority. Mr Barón Crespo is right: go ahead and form a majority with the British Conservatives, and I will be interested to see what kind of President you get for the Commission. That is something I would like to see.

(Laughter and applause)

There is something else I would like to say: let me add something else. You stand up here and announce what you do and do not want. Tell us for once and for all, and tell the Presidency. Either we want Europe to be based on human rights and the rule of law, in which case there is one road open to us, namely, to be honest. We agree on this, that we have to tell Mr Putin the truth about Chechnya, and that is what the Presidency should be doing. We have to tell it straight to China: that is what Mr Schröder ought to do. Not only is it folly to lift the arms embargo – in view of human rights in China, of their policy on Taiwan, of their policy on Tibet,

(Applause)

it is criminal. We have to tell them so. Then we need to talk straight to Iran.

(Protests)

Then there is Hanau: we have to be straight with China about this Hanau nonsense. It is foolish to operate as a weapons dealer and to work towards increasing the number of uranium treatment facilities. These comments are also aimed at Mr Brok, whose party in the Bundestag supports the move, and at Mr Schröder. The list goes on: we also have to be honest with Iran. Giving money towards destruction – as is being done in Iran at the moment – is a political disaster for democracy. We have to tell Iran that. Then, if we really do support the rule of law and democracy, let us simply follow the Brazilians’ example. In Brazil, they have decided that if their citizens have to have their photograph and fingerprints taken when they travel to the United States, then all US citizens who come to Brazil will have to do the same. That means that if Americans come to Europe,

(Applause)

they will also have to have their fingerprints and photograph taken. Equality all round! Only then will we be partners worthy of respect.

To close, I would like to touch on the Stability Pact and the Commission. President Prodi, it was heroic to declare this Stability Pact a load of nonsense. Your decision to take legal action against the Council was foolish, because you were unable to reform the Stability Pact even though it is not working. It is just as stupid to defend a rule that does not work as to defend a stupid rule. We all have to acknowledge the fact. Thank you.

(Laughter and applause)

  Collins (UEN). – Mr President, it is a very great pleasure for me and my Irish UEN colleagues to welcome here the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, our political party leader, as President-in-Office of the Council.

Europe is very fortunate at this particular time to have the presidency held by a Prime Minister who is one of the longest-serving heads of government in any of our Member States. In fact, the President-in-Office and myself are co-signatories to the Maastricht Treaty.

With regard to the IGC, the failure to reach agreement at the December Brussels Summit is, undoubtedly, a serious setback for the European Union, but it is not a crisis. The Union will continue to function on the basis of the existing Treaties and the process of enlargement, with the accession of ten new countries on 1 May 2004. However, a hastily reconvened summit and a second failure to reach agreement on a constitutional treaty would quickly plunge the European Union into crisis. After the summit failure, the immediate need was for a period of calm reflection by Member State governments and EU institutions. I am delighted that the Irish presidency has already embarked on an intensive programme of consultations with fellow Member State governments during the first working week of its presidency.

I am also pleased to note that the Irish Government is most diligent in seeking clarification on the results of the bilateral meetings which took place at the end of the last presidency. It is important – indeed essential – to determine the exact position in which we find ourselves at the earliest possible opportunity. It is now time for all those involved in EU decision-making to demonstrate the necessary discipline and patience to avoid further failures and to await the report of the presidency to the Spring Summit.

All of us must avoid inflaming the debate by raising issues which could be interpreted as threatening in many national capitals. It is not helpful at this time to have some Member States threatening to reduce the size of the European Union budget. Nor is it helpful to have Member States floating the idea of a two-speed Europe. The European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, must do everything possible to ensure that the idea of a two-speed Europe does not gather momentum. If some Member States wish to move forward at a faster pace on specific issues, then the enhanced cooperation mechanism already exists to enable them to do so. Already some, but not all, Member States are involved in the eurozone and the Schengen Agreement. These methods could be applied to other sectors or issues if necessary.

However, the suggestion that a small group of Member States could forge ahead, creating a two-speed Europe, is vastly different in scope. It is a highly destructive proposal, which could put at risk the effectiveness and even the very existence of the European Union. The debate on the IGC and treaty reform should be characterised by caution and by mature reflection. It is far more important to obtain a good result than an early result.

The Spring Summit will also focus on the Lisbon Agenda and I welcome the presidency's proposal to give renewed impetus to the reform goals agreed at Lisbon. It is in all our interests that the objective of making Europe the world's most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010 be achieved. Some progress has been made and we are still a long way from achieving the agreed targets. We must focus on polices which will improve European competitiveness and productivity, while investing more on research and new product development. This is one area where the European Union can have a practical effect on citizens' lives by improving living standards and increasing environment opportunities.

It is regrettable that some Member States are now advocating a reduction in the size of the EU budget. At a time when the European Union is expanding to include ten new countries and when these countries are making stringent efforts to encourage economic growth, we have a duty at least to give these countries access to resources, which the existing fifteen have had access to in the past. It is in all our interests to encourage these countries to reach their maximum potential as soon as possible. The Commission will shortly bring forward proposals on the next financial perspectives. The Commission should ensure that the resources in future EU budgets are sufficient to provide for a continuation of existing EU programmes in an expanded Union of 25.

A related issue concerns the budgetary powers of this Parliament, where different suggestions have been tabled to increase and decrease the role of Parliament in this area. I support Parliament's view in insisting on maintaining its existing powers over the budget.

In external relations, as with previous presidencies, the Middle East will once again be a priority issue. I am pleased to note that this week Minister Cowen, as President-in-Office, is making an official visit to the Middle East, where I am confident he will make every effort to move forward the peace process in that region. The Irish presidency should concentrate its efforts on implementing the roadmap and ensuring that its partners in the quartet are committed to this goal. Only the roadmap provides the basis on which progress can be made towards a just and lasting two-state solution.

The priority that the presidency is giving to US relations is to be welcomed. The US is our biggest trading partner and is a country with which Europe has strong cultural and historical links. We have had political differences in the recent past but the time has now come to put these problems behind us. Indeed, I am of the view that the transatlantic relationship has not yet adapted fully to the new set of circumstances which exist following the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the effective removal of a security threat to Europe from the East and the emergence of the United States as the world's only superpower. Ireland is particularly well placed to improve relations with our American friends and I hope that the Irish presidency will further strengthen and deepen relations between the Eruopean Union and the United States.

(Applause)

  Bonde (EDD). – (DA) Mr President, before Christmas, the group chairmen were in Dublin to negotiate with the Irish Presidency. We spent some useful hours with Bertie and Dick and were able to welcome them. In this House, I shall welcome Mr Ahern and Mr Roche on a more official basis. I am certain that, as a small country, Ireland will deliver an outstanding Presidency.

I myself come from a small country in which we are on first-name terms with the prime minister and his closest rivals for the job. My friends in Dublin sometimes meet Bertie Ahern at the local pub. That closeness to the electorate is something to which I would ask the Irish Presidency to draw attention at the next European Council. How do we put the people at the centre of the debates concerning the Treaty? How do we make the voters into those who decide, in the EU too? Do not get involved in the present fight concerning the weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers. Do not breach an agreement entered into with Poland. Look at the minority statement from the Convention which, in actual fact, contains the key to the future.

We propose, as the main rule, that decisions must be made by 75% of the countries in the Council of Ministers, with all the countries being equal and having one vote each. The 75% must also represent half of the voters. This is out of particular consideration for the most populous countries, but we also propose that special account be taken of all the electorates: all the EU countries, both large and small, should have the right of veto on really vital matters.

We accept that majority decisions are the point of departure. It should be possible to use the right of veto if this is agreed to at a public meeting in the national parliament and if the prime minister is prepared to defend its use at the next EU summit. This is a sustainable compromise which combines the democratic principle that the voters always have the last word with efficient international decision-making. Without the right of veto on vital issues, no efficiency is achieved. There are merely permanent battles and confusion where the Member States do not administer the common decisions.

Look, however, at the statistics for the implementation of EU legislation. That is the reality. Parliamentary democracy must not be ignored. Without majority decisions, however, the result is permanent discussions of practical issues too, in relation to which all the countries have a common interest in its being possible, as a general rule, for them to vote their way to solutions. We need to take both considerations equally seriously.

The draft Convention has neglected to satisfy parliamentary democracy in our Member States, and it will, therefore, scarcely be possible to agree to such democracy in the form of fair referendums, with full information supplied. Let it come down to a test, however. Instead of organising a second referendum in Ireland if the electorate votes no, you should involve the other countries in the demand that the draft Constitution be voted on in referendums in all the countries and, preferably, on the same day throughout the EU.

Dear Irish Presidency, we look forward to cooperating with you and will offer our affectionate, critical, constructive and democratic opposition.

  Paisley (NI). – Mr President, the President-in-Office of the Council may find it strange that I should be welcoming the Irish Republic's presidency today, but I know that he will understand my intention because he is going to be so busy over the next six months that we will not have to tolerate his presence at meetings in Northern Ireland. We will be able to get on with our business, as so overwhelmingly decided by the electorate, and he can get on with his. We wish him a fair wind only as regards that particular issue.

We in Northern Ireland have problems. The new President-in-Office of the Council has said that he would not tolerate having any members of the IRA/Sinn Fein in the Dublin Government, but insists that we tolerate them if we are to have a government in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. I trust he will learn over the next six months to become consistent and no longer tell us to accept something that he would not tolerate.

I well understand his forced optimism today regarding the new constitutional proposal but agree with the last speaker that the Union should decide on this democratically, with every part of that Union holding a referendum to decide on the issue so that the people can voice their opinion. This would constitute a step towards stability and progress.

Realistically, I do not think there can be a mighty leap forward in the six months of this presidency. There are many things that need to be attended to. The President-in-Office made a few remarks about human rights, which I think are a very important part of our agenda. On that subject, the matter of paedophile priests and their victims, which affects the whole of the European Union, is one of very serious consequence to us all. I trust that this matter, which the President-in-Office knows something about as it affects the country of which he is Prime Minister, will be attended to. There must be no cover-up and the problem must be addressed directly by this Parliament and the European Union.

There are also other matters, like agriculture and fisheries, to deal with. The people whom I represent in this House were sadly disappointed and very angry at the attitude the government headed by the President-in-Office has shown to the fishing industry. He will see the impact of that disappointment and anger in the days to come.

As for agriculture, we know that this is an industry which needs all the help it can get in both parts of Ireland. There is no use talking about helping Poland into a position of power when that could be disastrous for the agriculture interests of other parts of the Union. These are matters which the President-in-Office of the Council and this House need to consider thoroughly.

  Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, that last contribution is a sad reminder that the doctrine of bigotry is alive and well in certain parts of this Union. We still have a lot of work to do in that area.

(Applause)

Taoiseach, Minister Roche, Ambassador Anderson, I join colleagues in welcoming you here this morning, particularly on behalf of my Irish colleagues in the PPE-DE Group. Our presence here, as well as yours, Mr President, in the chair of this august assembly, sends a huge signal to all small Member States that the systems and the processes in Europe allow the smallest of nations to come to the top in the right circumstances. I am extremely proud of your presence in the chair and of the Taoiseach's presence here as President of the Council of the European Union for the coming six months. I thank you for the honour you bring to our country in that regard.

Taoiseach, there are those who contend that the only truly important issue to be tackled under the sixth Irish presidency of the European Union is that of the completion of the IGC, the issue of the Constitution. Over the past few weeks you have been playing down your chances of delivering on this, certainly on the domestic scene. However, having listened to you here this morning, I feel that this might have been merely a political stratagem, dampening down expectations perhaps, and from what you have said – I hope I am right in my interpretation – this is right up there at the top of your agenda and you have all our support in that regard.

Again we hear the Lisbon Strategy being trotted out: the mantra of Lisbon. Quite frankly, at this stage most businesses think that time is running out for Lisbon, if indeed it has not already run out. We need concrete action, not just repetitions of wish lists and words. What exactly are we going to do in relation to Lisbon? What are we going to do in relation to deregulation to allow businesses to flourish, to allow innovation? Facts please, Taoiseach, specifics please, no more wish lists, because this is the eighth time I have sat here listening to this at the start of a presidency and I find it very hard at the end of every presidency to see what difference has actually been made in relation to the Lisbon Strategy. Please tell us before you go today exactly what you intend to do to make the Lisbon goals a reality during your watch.

Of particular note is the fact that the growth of the US economy, which has outperformed Europe's economy since Lisbon – the gap has grown, not lessened – is driven by its superior research and development. In fact, the gap in wealth is stretching every year. It is time we acted. The Irish presidency must concentrate on a sound framework for European research and innovation. I ask you particularly to look at the seventh EU framework programme and to deliver as best you can.

I would like to acknowledge the historic period of enlargement which will happen under your watch and welcome into the Community our ten new Member States with their considerable scientific enterprise and research skills, which must be harnessed and developed to full capacity.

We must place emphasis on overall economic growth, but our priority must be to promote employment, more and better jobs in our European Union. In the interests of equity, productivity and social stability, we must address the serious issue of Europe's greying population and so we must create the optimum conditions for jobs.

Two-thirds of Europe's workforce are currently employed in enterprises employing less than 250 people. As such, these SMEs are the driving force of European job creation. We must focus on simplifying and establishing a supportive regulatory-environment framework which encourages entrepreneurship and reduces this bureaucracy and red tape.

If you are sincere in what you are saying in advocating for the rest of Europe a knowledge-based economy, perhaps you could start by ensuring that our Irish universities and third-level institutions are adequately funded to allow access to the greatest possible number of young people.

I should like to ask you to put the ratification of Kyoto, which is essential for progress and for all our futures, way up there at the top of the agenda at the EU-Russia summit.

Finally, given the well-publicised claim by members of your government that Ireland is closer to Boston than Berlin – a claim from which I dissociate myself – could you at least turn that now to an advantage with your plans to re-establish close transatlantic links given the rift that has ensued following the invasion of Iraq?

Again, Taoiseach, I welcome you here this morning and you have my sincere good wishes for a very successful term at the helm of Europe.

  President. I do not like to irritate colleagues by interrupting them, but I must appeal for your support. There are 40 speakers still to speak in this debate and the vote is due to take place at noon. We will not be finished in time if speaking times are not respected.

  De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to welcome the Taoiseach, Minister Roach and Ambassador Anderson this morning. I welcome the wide-ranging speech that the Taoiseach made to the House, which covered many key issues with which this House is concerned. I wish you and the Irish Government well with the very onerous agenda which it falls to you to push forward. I have no doubt that you will carry out your responsibilities with efficiency.

The most important issue, as you, Taoiseach, and every other speaker emphasised, is the draft Constitution. We all wish the IGC could have concluded in December. That it did not reflects badly on those who blocked the conclusion, and I include not only Poland and Spain in that criticism. The most important objective is to ensure that there is momentum on this issue. Europe needs this constitution, which would make the Union more democratic, more socially engaged and more comprehensible to its citizens and would enable us to play a more positive role on the world stage. But be warned, Parliament will not accept any old outcome. The constitution produced by the Convention must remain largely intact. The values, the objectives and the rights of citizens must not be diluted. Nor must the budgetary powers of this Parliament be diluted in any way.

Another key issue is the Lisbon process. Europe must advance with social progress hand in hand with economic progress. There is no time to go into detail on that issue, but it will be an example of a serious commitment by the Irish Government if it were to drop its opposition to the Temporary Agency Workers Directive, which will help to develop a flexible and adaptable workforce if we address this issue in the correct way. It affects millions of workers right across the European Union.

Finally, I urge you to take up the issue of debt cancellation for developing countries. Servicing debt costs the poorest countries more than they receive in development aid. A human development approach to debt sustainability with highly indebted countries would mean that the first call on poor countries' government resources would be expenditures needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals. For the poorest countries, this will require 100% cancellation of their debts. I know the Irish Government is committed to that issue as a government adopting the Irish approach, but I would ask you to put that onto the agenda for the other Member States in Europe and seek to ensure progress is made on it during your six months in office.

There are many other issues I would like to raise, including the Guantanamo prisoners and the appalling suffering of the Palestinian people, but time does not permit me to do so.

  Costa, Paolo (ELDR). – (IT) Mr President-in-Office, the priorities you have proposed here today deserve a general welcome and just a couple of comments that I shall make. Your varied and complex programme indicates that there is now a programmatic acquis for Europe, a common heritage of ideas and objectives that will increasingly make the Union a necessary institution for Europe and the whole world. First of all, this programmatic acquis requires that we should have the rules and institutions that will enable us to achieve our common objectives and, even before that, it requires that trust should be restored in the grand design for the integration of Europe. In recent months we have seen too many signs of a selfish attitude towards the European adventure, reducing the Union to a self-service institution in which each country periodically reassesses its membership on the basis of its own short-term goals. The breach of the Stability and Growth Pact by France and Germany, which ECOFIN permitted on 25 November, or the vetoes from all sides that prevented the European constitution from being adopted are just the most blatant examples of a kind of Euro-selfishness that must be firmly stamped upon straight away, before everything becomes more difficult in the Europe of 25.

Mr President-in-Office, please make every effort for the Intergovernmental Conference to conclude its work by approving the Constitution during this Presidency. I am sure I can say that Parliament is with you in wanting to achieve this Constitution, based to a great extent on the work of the Convention, as soon as possible. It is an event that all sincere pro-Europeans are waiting for.

It is with the primary purpose of giving new impetus to the grand design for Europe that I should like to raise two points about your programme of work. The first is the scant attention paid to cohesion policies, and the second is the urgent need to develop true physical integration for Europe, promoting mobility everywhere within its area through the implementation of the European transport network. The cohesion of the whole of Europe and the involvement of all the regions in the sustainable European process are an expression of that solidarity which I believe is fundamental if European citizens are to identify with the process that we are carrying forward.

(Applause)

  Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL). (SV) Mr President, the Irish Presidency is very welcome. We have high expectations, because we know that small countries such as Ireland are usually able to provide effective and energetic Presidencies. It is also important in view of the fact that the previous Italian Presidency was so very poor. You have not only your own problems to deal with, but also some of the problems created by the previous Presidency. Some of them are in the area of foreign policy. I want to mention two of these.

The Italian Presidency neglected to criticise the enormous human rights violations taking place in Chechnya. Now, we expect some plain speaking to be directed to Russia on this fundamental issue of human rights for the civilian population of Chechnya.

Where Palestine was concerned, there was also another Italian misadventure. They tried to pursue a more pro-Israeli policy and had a unilateral meeting with Mr Sharon. In the case of Palestine, the reality on the ground is, however, that, by building the wall and expanding its settlements, Israel is on the way to destroying a possible two-State solution and destroying the Palestinians’ prospects of leading normal lives. Here too, there is a need for plain language on the part of the EU. In the very last few days, Israel has also introduced a kind of visa requirement applicable to the occupied territories, something that also affects EU citizens, aid workers, journalists and others. We expect the EU to protest.

When it comes to the environmental sphere, which is my own speciality, I think, however, that the Presidency’s programme is rather thin and not sufficiently practical. You would have done well to have gone a little further in this area. For example, you could have mentioned the importance of quickly obtaining sound chemicals legislation and of cooperating with Parliament on this issue. The importance of giving more impetus to the climate negotiations is, in itself, referred to, but the EU has an enormous task in this area over the next six months when the Kyoto Protocol is in danger of collapsing. Other major issues are the Carthagena Protocol and the biodiversity conference in Kuala Lumpur, where important decisions are going to be taken on trade involving genetically engineered products. This has been the EU’s pet area of concern for a long time, and care needs to be taken over it.

There is another sphere I also think has been rather neglected in this programme, which is otherwise sound. I mean the crisis for the currency union. It is time to stop pretending. The currency union and the Stability and Growth Pact face a serious economic and political crisis. This was apparent as recently as yesterday when the Commission chose to bring a case at the EC Court of Justice against the Council’s decision. The crisis consists of the fact that unrealistic rules have been devised. When reality and the rules collide, a political crisis such as this arises, and there can only be one solution: to review the Stability and Growth Pact as it stands at present.

  Maes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, our welcome to the Irish Presidency is very sincere, for we know it to be an opportunity for Europe when a small country like yours sets to work in full awareness of its European and global task. You are also an example to the new Member States, in that you made a success of your own accession, both for your own people and for the whole of Europe. As regionalists and representatives of stateless peoples, we expect from Ireland more understanding for our aspirations towards autonomy and maintaining our own identity, as towards direct participation in European decision-making. Whether we are Scotland, Wales, the Basque country, Catalonia, Galicia or Flanders, we expect the same level of respect from the EU as the Baltic States or the Scandinavian countries.

You can expect our wholehearted support for your prioritisation of a sound European Constitution and for your ambition to make Europe a more effective player at world level for the benefit of peace and sustainable development. We therefore hope that you will, for example, continue to curb the arms trade and will ensure that the rules of the code of conduct are observed in the process.

Ireland boasts long experience in the dialogue with the peoples of the Middle East and as a donor and partner of the countries in Africa, but the millennium agenda should be incorporated more effectively in our day-to-day goals, also as a European Union. It is no small feat to have the ambition to halve, by 2015, the number of poor who have to survive on less than 1 dollar a day. How much progress have we made on this score? I could, however, also mention the other objectives.

I should like to make a specific appeal with regard to debt reduction, because many poor countries have to swim along in this global world sea with a millstone of debt around their necks. Finally, I hope that sustainable development will not remain an empty shell where it involves our own European policy on sugar, cotton or rice, for that is what we will be judged on.

  Abitbol (EDD). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you are inheriting a European Union that is in quite a pitiful state, which has, throughout 2003, shown itself to be fundamentally incapable of responding to the major external and internal challenges faced by the people of Europe.

Under these circumstances, it would have been quite premature, to say the least, to give this Europe of 25 – which is what it is – a constitution, this being the symbol of a people’s political and democratic maturity. We are far from reaching that point. You said just now, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that we were the elected representatives of the people. We are not; we are the elected representatives of the European peoples, until there is evidence to the contrary.

So, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, make more speed with less haste. The top priority is not what Mr Poettering is loudly demanding, which is all that his supporters can see. The people of Europe do not have the same priorities as the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, and they do not care about the political leanings of the Commissioners. The people of Europe do not need a constitution, which is a matter for institutions. They need growth; they need jobs. I think that you could make your Presidency a great deal more useful by taking the Union down that road, rather than getting lost in the maze of this supposed constitution. In order to restore growth and employment, there needs to be a change of policy. The policy followed since the Maastricht Treaty has failed. Europe, and specifically the euro zone, is dropping a growth point every year solely due to the restrictive, Malthusian and ultimately somewhat sadistic policy of the European Central Bank, which means that we now have a largely overvalued currency. Are we going to accept the European economy being mortgaged for much longer by the ghosts of those whom General de Gaulle would have called ‘the gnomes of Frankfurt’?

The greatest danger for Europe, Mr President, for the Lisbon process and for growth and employment, I am sorry to say, is my former compatriot, Mr Trichet. Your Presidency will be judged not on the Constitution, you can be sure, but on your ability to make the European currency work for the European economy.

  Berthu (NI). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the Irish Presidency is today taking on the onerous task of continuing with the Intergovernmental Conference and trying to bring together positions that do not simply differ on technical points, but also due to reasons associated with the concept of sovereignty.

You said just now, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that the new Constitution should meet the expectations of citizens and enable the EU to play a more coherent role in the world. If that were all it meant, everyone would be in complete agreement. However, there is another fundamental issue that is much more difficult: how can we cooperate while preserving democracy? Do we need to move towards removing the independence of national sovereignty through majority votes, according to the draft constitution, or, as we believe, should we preserve sovereignty and therefore the national democracies of the Member States?

We need to explain this issue clearly to citizens and, with this in mind, we urge the Irish Presidency to start doing this, to publicly and accurately set out the IGC’s points of agreement and disagreement. Of course, this would not prejudge the outcome, as we are well aware that there is no agreement on anything as long as there is not agreement on everything, but it would at least allow us to begin a genuine debate and seriously inform citizens.

We also hope that the governments are going to use the coming months to better evaluate the consequences of the plan. For example, we read in the priorities of the Irish Presidency, published by the website, ‘Sources d'Europe’, that you ‘would hope’, I said, ‘you would hope’ that the accession negotiations with Turkey could begin at the end of 2004. Could you therefore tell us what Turkey’s place would be in the institutions of the future constitution, which would be made to last, as everyone is always telling us? What would its place be in the Council in forty years time? What would its place be in the European Parliament? What would its place be in the new majority decision-making process? Mr President-in-Office of the Council, your answers would really fuel the debate.

  Evans, Jonathan (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Taoiseach, I should like to begin by wishing the Irish presidency success in its work over the coming six months. You have set out a number of important priorities for action in the period ahead, not least that of kick-starting the Lisbon agenda on economic reform and competitiveness.

I want to concentrate today on the issue of the draft Constitution and the situation following the failure of the Brussels Summit in December. However, as we have made clear on a number of occasions, the Union must also get to grips with advancing the stalled Lisbon process. Ireland has made great economic strides in recent years, but throughout the Union there remains a reluctance to embrace genuine economic reform.

I was pleased to note in the press this week that the Commission wishes to take forward the liberalisation of the internal market in services. Such issues are worth tackling in the short to medium term but, as regards the long term, EU Member States need to be more ambitious in their approach. However, my enthusiasm is tempered by the reality that liberalisation in areas such as medicine, legal and fiscal advice and employment agencies, whilst worthy, is essentially a distraction from the big picture of further liberalisation in the telecommunications, energy and financial services sectors. I urge the Taoiseach to exert his influence over the Union's agenda in the months ahead to promote real and lasting economic reform. If he sets the agenda, he will have our full and enthusiastic support.

On the question of the draft Constitution, which came to grief at Brussels last December, I would simply say this: our view has always been that the draft Constitution was moving the EU in the wrong direction. The aspirations of the Laeken Summit two years ago, when the Heads of Government expressed the hope that the Convention would bring the Union closer to its citizens, has singularly failed to materialise.

I would in any case like to ask the Taoiseach, in the light of the collapse of the talks, to answer one very specific question. In recent correspondence I have had with Mr Peter Hain, the British Government's main representative on the Convention, he refers to the ‘Treaty that we agreed at the European Council ...’. Does the presidency recognise that a treaty was ‘agreed’, or is it the case, as has been said before, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed? We all need to have urgent clarification on that.

  Hänsch (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, we can fully endorse two remarks about the draft Constitution and the Intergovernmental Conference made by the President-in-Office of the Council. You spoke, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, of the excellent work done by the Convention. Mr Cohn-Bendit mocked your comments. I will take them seriously and at face value. Your words indicate that you will not allow your colleagues at the IGC to destroy that excellent work and again leave it in tatters. We know that the IGC will not adopt the draft text exactly as it stands. Nevertheless, the draft Constitution is more than just a starting point – it is balanced, fair, and contains all the key elements for a solution. In a Union of states and citizens, Mr Poettering, the double majority system forms part of that essential factor: balance. That is why it is included in the draft Constitution, and not to give any Member State an edge.

Your second comment, Mr President-in-Office, was that you want to move ahead swiftly. You want to report back in March and we fully support that aim. On this point, Mr Poettering, I agree with you for once. The rumours and prognostications about a two-tier or two-speed system, about centres of gravity and so forth must stop, and the best way to do that is by providing a European Constitution, and fast.

(Applause)

Mr President-in-Office, you expressed your conviction that the European Union needs a Constitution. Obviously, we share that view. However, we do not need any old Constitution; we need the Convention’s proposed text. What is more, we need it now, not just in two or three years’ time. The world and the new challenges it brings is not going to wait for Europe. If I may, I would also like to address Mr Poettering. Mr Poettering, you called for the results of the elections to be taken into account when the next President of the Commission is appointed. I am very happy to hear you speak out so clearly in favour of a Commission President from the ranks of the social democrats.

(Applause)

  Duff (ELDR). – Mr President, the tone of the debate in this House is clear: most of us want to assist the Irish presidency to reach a quick settlement on the Constitution through our political contacts, and with our experience of these questions we can provide both practical and moral support. The scheduling of the work of the IGC is extremely important because, if it is scheduled and programmed properly, pressure will grow on the Member States to take more seriously their collective duty to provide leadership for the European Union. Why not pencil into the calendar an IGC summit meeting before 1 May?

The manner in which the new Commission President is chosen will serve as a further way of restoring political faith in Europe. This is a function of the presidency on which the Taoiseach was curiously discreet. How that person is chosen will be a factor in the fight to restore and strengthen the political authority of the Commission. It is not simply a question of finding a single candidate. All the party political groups should find their own champion, and the procedure provided for by the Convention could easily and simply be brought into early use by us all in June and July.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Irish Presidency faces a number of challenges. I shall highlight three, beginning with the negotiations of the financial perspective for the post-2006 period and proposals for the future of cohesion policy. The context in which these are to be tabled does not bode well for much-needed economic and social cohesion in the EU. Straightaway, we find ourselves, unacceptably, blackmailed by the so-called ‘Gang of Six’, which aims to limit the Community budget to 1% of the Community’s gross national product, following the lack of agreement at the Brussels Summit on the new Draft Constitutional Treaty. Given that the debate within the Commission currently fluctuates between maintaining the current limit of the financial perspective, 1.24% of Gross National Product, and reducing it to 1.15% – despite the accession of countries with revenues of less than 50% of the Community average, and despite the increase in social inequality and of national and regional disparities in the EU. There is a danger that the new financial perspective will undermine what ought to be urgent priorities, such as jobs with rights, the fight against poverty and social exclusion, and cooperation and development with developing countries. The fundamental issue is, therefore, to increase the financial perspective.

The second challenge I wish to highlight is the much-needed review of the Stability Pact, which has been shown to be out of step with economic and social reality. We all know that it is an instrument for which the criteria are stupid, which penalises economic growth, jobs and public investment, and which ought to be scrapped. Simply making it flexible will not solve the problem. Debate is ongoing regarding the evaluation of current economic and monetary policies, especially the introduction of the single currency and the over-valuation of the euro, while the current economic climate amply illustrates the structural shortcomings of the policy that has been pursued and the need for a root and branch review. It is also essential that we amend what is known as the Lisbon Strategy, in order to achieve high-quality public services and to foster effective social inclusion. Finally, with regard to the Intergovernmental Conference for revising the Treaties, my suggestion is that you ignore the current draft.

  McKenna (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to welcome the Taoiseach, Mr Bertie Ahern, and his colleagues here today. The Irish presidency should not allow itself to be hijacked or bullied and pressurised into ensuring that an EU constitution is pushed through during its six-month term. Failure to reach a final agreement on the controversial Constitution will not mean failure for the Irish presidency – unless of course the government is foolish enough to give the impression that such an agreement could somehow be reached.

You may believe that if the Constitution were adopted during the Irish presidency, it would have a better chance of success in an Irish referendum. That will not be the case since those concerned about the issues will not be swayed to support it simply because it was finalised during that presidency. As you yourself know, Taoiseach, those in Ireland who are critical of the EU are so mainly because of the military implications of this Constitution.

If the Constitution is to become a priority, then some key issues must be addressed. These relate in particular to military aspects, including structured cooperation, but also to the issue of the Euratom Treaty, which clearly must come to an end, especially for a country which is anti-nuclear.

Much more time is needed to address the Constitution and the monumental decisions it entails, and the more time allowed the better. This would also give ordinary people throughout the European Union time to lobby for referenda on this issue. It would be a terrible blow to the democratic process if the people of Europe were not asked their opinion on this matter. The privilege we have in Ireland should be extended to all Member States.

Your party colleague, Mr Gerard Collins, was correct in saying that everything can continue under the existing rules. We were told that the Treaty of Nice was essential for enlargement. Now we are told it is insufficient. Let the Irish presidency be a constructive and positive one. Let the issues that really matter to the people take priority, such as the Irish Government's support for 100% debt cancellation for the world's poorest countries. This initiative has widespread support, so let us take this opportunity to push for its realisation.

You briefly mentioned environmental issues and you should take this opportunity to ensure that all the outstanding complaints against Ireland in relation to breaches of EU law are addressed and resolved.

On the issue of the EU-Russia summit, which you also mentioned, it is essential that the major issue of Chechnya be raised with the Russians. The issue of the arms embargo to China is also one of major concern to those worried about the arms trade.

Regarding the Middle East, I would urge Minister Cowen, who is going there today, to raise the concerns of many Members of this Parliament. Members who have just returned from Palestine say that the situation there is absolutely appalling. The walls which have been built there completely defy any kind of international logic or law.

  Farage (EDD). – Mr President, so, the Irish presidency is handed the political hot potato of the draft European Constitution. No doubt reconciling the egos of so many aged male leaders is going to prove quite a challenge; increasing public opposition to the Constitution will not help either.

I simply do not know whether a deal is possible in the course of the next few months. However, it is clear from the Irish programme that with or without the Constitution, this presidency intends to pursue a deeply integrationist agenda. Yet more agencies are to be established, all without democratic accountability and all adding to remote, bureaucratic control. This new form of government simply does not work! From the common fisheries policy to the Stability and Growth Pact, the whole system is mired in failure. Sadly, the Irish antidote to all this appears to be 'more of the same'.

  Pannella (NI). – (IT) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, if I may make a personal comment, I should like to offer the Irish Presidency my very best wishes. We have in common much more than we might have imagined in the past, perhaps because a large part of the Europe present here today is of Italian or Irish extraction. In New York and America we took our chance to find peace and our daily bread, freedom and work. We had to go and look for it there and, moreover, Ireland and Italy also have to choose between Counter-Reformation papism, which still hangs over both our societies, and a Europe of freedoms and of political, civil and economic reform. That is what I wanted to recall and place in context. Be careful, Mr President-in-Office! With the Vatican-inspired vetoes on research freedom, Europe is again threatened with losing an extremely dangerous amount of our countries’ culture, industry and civilisation.

Very briefly, Mr President-in-Office: pay close attention to reform, which is now international; pay close attention – and I am also addressing the President of the Commission – to that community of democracies towards whom the European Union has shown itself to be either indifferent or blindly hostile. In Geneva – we shall talk about it again this afternoon – there is the Commission on Human Rights. Mr President-in-Office, President of the Commission, change your tack! We are asking you to give a decisive speech on this issue, as we did with Mrs Bonino, as we also did a few days ago with a brilliant speech by Mr Cox at Sana’a in Yemen, with that charter and declaration of human rights drawn up by predominantly Arab countries, which I hope we will not have to go on taking forward for very long as a temporary measure with regard to the European Union and our own countries.

My best wishes, then, but please choose the road towards a Europe of freedom and reform and not the one towards counter-reform and obscurantism!

  Tajani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, we are delighted to welcome the Irish decision to endeavour to build a safer Europe, one which is ever closer to the citizens and which at last has its first constitution, the fruit of the Convention’s labours. You, Mr President-in-Office, will have our staunch support to reach these goals. Ireland has the task of bringing the good work of the Italian Presidency to a conclusion, as you pointed out this morning.

Mr President of the Commission, for the coming term to be successful a major political problem needs to be settled: what will the role of the Community’s executive power be? To answer this question we need to know what the President of the Commission intends to do. When, at the beginning of this year, you attacked the Italian Presidency, although you had praised it in your official speeches, you confirmed your intention of taking part yourself in the Italian election campaign. We should like you to give us some clarification, a clear answer to the vital question that Parliament is asking you: do you intend to continue as head of the executive, or have you decided to stand in the forthcoming European elections? It is your duty to decide, as Mr Poettering and Mr Barón Crespo have reminded you more than once. For this presidential term and the next, Europe needs a Commission with a full-time head. The Council and Parliament need a Commission that will perform its role as the promoter of legislative initiatives even more thoroughly than it has done up to now. The procedures for choosing commissioners from the enlargement countries, the opinion on Turkey, the submission of the Union’s financial perspective and the support you have announced for the signing of the constitutional treaty all require stability and a President whose commitments lie only in Brussels and Strasbourg.

  Hume (PSE). – Mr President, Mr President-in-Office and Mr President, I am very pleased that the Taoiseach and his ministers are here today and that they hold the presidency of Europe at this particularly crucial time. Because of the failure to establish agreement on the new European Constitution during the previous presidency, their first main task is to reach that agreement. I hope they will, because there is a clear need for a long-term constitutional framework for the new Europe of 25 countries, which may well become even larger during this decade.

The principles of the European Union have served us very well and must be preserved in the new Constitution: full representation of each Member State in all the institutions – institutions which respect our different identities, and where we can work together in our common interest.

I am confident that the Irish presidency will work hard to secure an agreement capable of winning the support of all the peoples of the European Union, in which all citizens and all Member States have equal rights, there is no second-class membership and we all make progress together. A two-speed or a two-tier Europe will not succeed in meeting the aspirations of our peoples.

Mr President-in-Office, the work you and your government have done, and are still doing, for peace in Northern Ireland is outstanding. The European Union is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution: the first half of the last century was the worst in the history of the world – 50 million dead. Who, then, could have dreamt that, in the second half of that century, those same peoples would unite? The principles at the heart of the European Union can therefore solve conflict anywhere in the world because those three principles are also at the heart of our agreement in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, given our history of success in conflict resolution in Europe, would it not be a very good thing if, during the Irish presidency, you were to persuade the Commission to set up a special department of peace and reconciliation so that, instead of sending armies to areas of conflict, a team of people equipped with the European Union's philosophy and principles is dispatched to those areas, since today we are in a stronger position to shape the world?

Technology, telecommunications and transport have made the world a much smaller place. The European Union could therefore play a major role in ensuring there will be no conflict or war in the world. The way to do that is to transport the philosophy of the European Union to areas of conflict: dialogue developed there will enable agreement to be reached accordingly.

  Dybkjær (ELDR). – (DA) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you face major challenges over the next six months, partly in connection with the constitutional Treaty. I have high hopes of you and would make a special proposal to which I believe that many European women, and not a few men, will attach importance.

Shortly before the Intergovernmental Conference, the Italian Presidency came up with a proposal to add – and I quote – ‘the principle of equality between men and women’ to Article 2 of the constitutional Treaty. Equality between men and women is not merely a principle. It is, and must continue to be, a fundamental value in the EU, just as the other values – human dignity, democracy etc – are not merely principles but fundamental values.

At the extraordinary meeting for previous Convention members, the Italian Foreign Ministers promised to take the following proposal further: after ‘equality’ in the first clause are to be added the words ‘including equality between men and women’. I shall produce the proposal for you, in writing and in English.

  Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to begin by congratulating the Commission on fulfilling its responsibility with regard to judicially demanding compliance with the Stability Pact. Rules must apply equally to everybody, because otherwise we will not be able to say that we live within the Rule of Law.

Nevertheless, I regret that certain members of the Commission have made statements referring to a two-speed Europe, that is, dividing Europe up just when we are about to reunify. That is not the way for the Commission to carry out one of its essential functions; guardian of the Treaties. And, incidentally, it is reasonable, in a democratic system, that the head of the executive power be asked to respond to a parliamentary majority.

I would like to praise the Irish Presidency for the clarity with which it has given its opinion on a two-speed Europe. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we expect a lot from the next six months and fully agree with the political priorities set and your commitment, which you have repeated this morning, to the European Constitution. We believe it is necessary to confront a process of reforms for the economic and social modernisation of the Union, to guarantee freedom, security and justice for the people who live or reside in it, and finally, to define more profound relations with the United States, in order to combat the new threats to our democracies and our fundamental rights more effectively.

Ireland is a good example of what solidarity in the Union should be, and that solidarity is best expressed through our policy of economic and social cohesion. My country, Spain, also aspires to achieving real convergence with the European Union average because, according to our political philosophy, the aim is not to create permanently subsidised societies, but that our level of development must contribute to the internal economic balance of the Union.

We wish the Irish Presidency every success over the coming months.

  Titley (PSE). – Mr President, I also wish to welcome the President-in-Office. It is certainly nice to see the professionals back in charge of the shop.

The real challenge for this presidency, of course, is to deliver enlargement, and the difficulties that remain should not be underestimated. The new countries must be pressured by this presidency to continue the reforms necessary for their successful integration into the Union. We must continue our clear commitment to Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey to ensure that the enlargement process proceeds. Enlargement is the challenge of the decade. It is not just a question of delivering enlargement, but also of making it work. Enlargement could make or break the European Union. Frankly, without a reform of our decision-making structures, enlargement will break the Union – it is as simple as that. Therefore, we must have a constitutional treaty.

I fear that many colleagues here today have underestimated the vested interests there are in some governments not to have an agreement, at least for the time being. How else do you explain voting arrangements that do not come into effect until 2009 causing the collapse of the IGC? It defies belief that was the only reason.

The real tragedy of this debacle is that it is distracting us from even more important work. The Constitution is about how we do things, when our attention should be focused on what we do. Key to that is the Lisbon process, which is running out of steam, hamstrung as it is by a surfeit of generalities, a lack of specific targets, and by the Member States' failure to implement what they have agreed to.

In particular, this presidency must take forward the report by Wim Kok. We must have more and better jobs; we must make work pay; we must have a more dynamic social model aimed at getting more people into work – particularly those traditionally excluded; we must avoid having a two-tier workforce and we need a more productive workforce. To do this we have to set every government clear targets to be achieved. The new Member States are used to annual scrutiny. We have to extend that discipline to the existing states. Let us do more to put countries on the spot.

My question to the President-in-Office is very specific: how do you intend to take forward Wim Kok's very important report? Because, more than anything else, if you deliver on more jobs you will earn the eternal gratitude of our voters.

  Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR). – (ES) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council began his speech in his own language, Gaelic; you also did so, President Cox, at your investiture, as well as the President of Ireland. However, I cannot use mine, Catalan, spoken by more than seven million people, and the Catalan Government and Parliament cannot address the Court of Justice in Catalan on issues relating to the application of European Union law, which makes up 80% of our legislation.

My request, therefore, since you have a particular understanding of what it means to defend the identity of a people and a country in Europe, is that the European Constitution, which you have committed yourself to promoting, should take account of the rights of these peoples, their languages, their cultures and also the constitutional regions. There are many references for it and many reasons to defend it.

  Sudre (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, in the six month period starting now, during which Ireland is taking over the Presidency of the Council, there are two important events: the historic unification of Europe with the accession of ten new countries on 1 May and the European elections next June in our twenty-five Member States. The events of the next six months will surely be dominated by the continuance of the Intergovernmental Conference, which is responsible for preparing a new constitution for Europe after the failure of the Brussels summit in December.

It is clear that the European Union will be in a better position to welcome these new members if it already has a constitution. You were pragmatic, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, when you recently spoke out against the idea of setting a final deadline for reaching an agreement on the future constitutional treaty. However, you were also wise in warning against extending the IGC too much.

Like you, I think that the longer the negotiations go on, the smaller the chances will be of reaching an agreement. I have therefore quite understood your desire to make every effort to encourage the decision-making process, because institutional confusion should not cause us to forget the historic event of the ten new Member States joining the EU, countries that have largely proved themselves worthy of joining a Community of value and freedom. Let us ensure that the indecision that we have been guilty of does not paralyse the entire European plan.

In less than six months, the citizens of the united Europe will be called upon, in the European elections, to decide together on the future of our continent. Traditionally, and unfortunately, the electorate is not interested in this vote, because what is at stake seems to be too distant or obscure to them. I hope that the Irish Presidency and all the Member States of the EU will tackle this problem and try to mobilise citizens by organising a European debate giving them a real choice between the different options available to Europe.

  Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my first remarks are addressed to an absent colleague, which I am sure is due to his packed schedule. I actually wanted to respond to Mr Poettering. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but he will undoubtedly hear what I have to say.

In the course of today’s discussion about the Irish Presidency we have heard yet again from Mr Poettering, who always comes back to the same subject, namely the question of who will be the next Commission President. As far as he is concerned, it is obvious that the next Commission President will be proposed by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. First of all, let me say that the European elections take place on 13 June. It is not up to Mr Poettering in plenary to determine which group will be strongest in this House after those elections, but rather it will be decided by European voters. We still intend to do a lot of campaigning. I am not certain that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will be the strongest group in the House after the elections. It may be, Mr Poettering, that the unifying forces at work within this group will actually fail between now and then. I am thinking of the British Conservative Party, and others, who no longer want to sit in this group, but it may be that a couple more will join them. Maybe Mr Fini – we do not know. It is a dynamic process after all.

Whoever becomes the next Commission President, however, will need broad support in this House and will only receive broad support in this House if he, or she, has the Group of the Party of European Socialists on his, or her, side. Our conservative colleagues would therefore be well advised to pursue an inclusive approach in the Chamber, rather than electioneering here.

Allow me to make a further comment. This criticism applies to everyone who refers to the domestic political situation in a particular Member State. I am thinking of the previous presidency, which taught me a hard lesson. For the moment, however, let it be noted with no further comment that every Forza Italia MEP in this House exploits the office of the Commission President for domestic campaigning purposes. In my opinion, this is something that should be rejected vigorously in the interests of the European institutions.

(Applause)

Mr President-in-Office, I would like to ask you the same question that I also put to your predecessor, and I hope we will not end up with flights of cinematographic fancy. What do you intend to do to ensure the rapid introduction of the European arrest warrant? I put the same question to each presidency. If in your comments, you suggest that the Tampere process should be reviewed, then let me remind you once again that the European arrest warrant was a key component of the Tampere Conclusions and did not – despite the commitments made at Tampere – enter into force on 1 January. Let me repeat a point I made in our last debate: this is not the fault of one Member State, but rather the fault of many Member States. For this reason, then, I also ask you to be the President-in-Office who finally takes this issue seriously. Because if we want to implement Tampere, we need the European arrest warrant. I would be very grateful if you could come back to this point in your reply.

(Applause)

  Maaten (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, last year was a miserable year for Europe, and the challenge is now to restore the confidence in the institutions and in the agreements that they have concluded. This confidence will also be reflected in the turnout for the European Parliament elections in June.

One way of restoring this confidence is more transparency and democracy. We are looking for a new President of the Commission, and we are looking for an independent, energetic person with the backing of a majority in the new Parliament. I would therefore ask the President of the Council to consider involving Parliament in the nominations of candidates, by, for example, having the political families put forward names. We should in any event get away from back-room decisions taken in the middle of the night.

Secondly, confidence can be restored by effective intervention in cross-border problems. This is what the public expect from us. Major epidemics are a case in point. The fact that SARS has passed us by during previous epidemic crises is more down to luck than good judgment. A new SARS epidemic is looming and I am asking the presidency to take the initiative to ensure that the Public Health Ministers grant the Commission – in this case, Commissioner Byrne – far-reaching powers to take crisis management measures, such as uniform controls at airports, should this prove necessary.

In any case, I am confident that this presidency can restore confidence in the institutions, and your inspired speech of today only encourages me in this.

  Bodrato (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I too am delighted that the Irish Presidency is prioritising the objective of reuniting the peoples of Europe, after divergences on key points of the Convention’s proposal led to its collapse in Brussels. The June elections must not be allowed to widen the split in the Union, but must instead give a new democratic boost to pro-European feeling.

Parliament wants to get back on course towards a constitution straight away, and appreciates the commitment to reconvene the Intergovernmental Conference and to act transparently, for the sake of closer and closer relations between the Union’s institutions and its citizens. We also share the multilateral position for a common foreign and defence policy, for a solid partnership with the United States, for the reaffirmation of the United Nations and for the resumption of international trade talks.

Public opinion is, however, concerned about the future. The spring Council will report the successes that have been achieved, but there is also the risk that the social model will be weakened without Europe’s economy becoming any more competitive in the world. We have to think carefully about the choices we need to make to relaunch the Lisbon strategy and also about the Union’s financial perspective: that is, the resources that Europe can call on to face the challenges that were clearly spelt out by Mr Prodi. These challenges concern, first of all, the enlargement of the Union and also, especially in the long-term, the future of our continent’s younger generations.

  Van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, Taoiseach, I urge you to tackle the language and culture of bureaucracy. Citizens' organisations despair when they read forms and subsidy applications in a Eurospeak that alienates citizens. All credit to the Irish Presidency for wanting to simplify forms, regulations and texts and make them citizen-friendly. The attack on this bureaucratic language and culture could consist of abolishing bureaucratic forms and replacing texts of regulations by modern, understandable and citizen-friendly text. Secondly, we could use an action network of national public organisations and national MPs as a contribution to the Irish conference in April in order to bring language and culture closer to the citizen. Thirdly, over the next few months, we ought to use TV commercials as a means of explaining, in straightforward language, to citizens in all European countries what the core message of Europe is: safety on the streets, global safety, protection of the environment, more democracy and less bureaucracy. Europe begins with the citizens in their own regions. Fourthly, we should support measures for proper governance. We need to bring down the number of pages of regulations from 80 000 to 50 000 and reduce the number of types of decisions from 23 to 6 in a bid to achieve clear, result-oriented and democratic governance. Accordingly, the European Constitution is of the highest priority and we should not get back to ‘business as usual’ until it is in place.

The Heads of Government have failed in their negotiations on the Constitution in Brussels. Without a Constitution, it is not possible to conceive of any further enlargement and any serious discussion about the financial perspectives. Also, there is no scope for any further political integration as long as democratic control by the European Parliament is lacking. Fifthly, we should support Parliament’s proposals for a citizens' test of all those EU proposals that we will be receiving in the foreseeable future. In this case, prevention is better than cure. Sixthly, we should back Parliament's subsidiarity proposal. Let us keep low what can be kept low and small-scale what can be done on a small scale, with the national parliaments as watchdogs.

These are our proposals in order to tackle a treacly bureaucratic Europe for the benefit of another, democratic Europe. Taoiseach Ahern, do you support this programme and will you do so in April?

For the rest, I would urge you to support the European Commission to maintain the rules at the Court, but also in the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact in order to bring about more European growth despite the hard euro. I would ask you to support the proposals by Wim Kok, and support the proposals for debt relief coupled to the millennium objectives for developing countries. Do you intend to take an initiative on this score and do you support the troika for Ethiopia and Eritrea where another war is threatening to break out?

The Naples agreement is an important step along the way towards a broad European safety policy. All studies have shown that all our citizens regard this as a priority, so I would urge you to be ready to bring about the Convention's Constitution. Enlargement by the addition of ten countries in the absence of a Constitution is an insult to the European citizens, for they must be central in this year of rejoicing for Europe – and the way in which you have worded your work programme leads me to have complete confidence in you.

  Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to wish the Irish Presidency luck and congratulate it on the slogan it has chosen, ‘Europeans – Working Together’, which is what we really need in order to confront the problems we are faced with.

We must welcome the Irish Presidency’s active approach to the institutional confusion. Europe needs and wants a Constitution which reflects the aspirations of all the citizens of the European Union.

It is clear, Mr President, that we must recover the path of sustainable growth and job creation. The Irish Presidency is very well situated, given the competitiveness the European Union requires, to take the path of the Lisbon Summit. At the same time, I believe it would be important – and it seems that the Presidency has not considered this – to schedule a debate on the financial perspectives which President Prodi announced this morning. It is clear that one problem we will have to face is the coherent decision taken by the Commission yesterday to bring proceedings before the Court of Justice as a result of the decision taken by the Ecofin Council. The European Union is a Community of law, and the rules only make sense if they are accompanied by the obligation for everybody, large and small, to comply with them.

We are very pleased with the Presidency-in-Office of the Council’s assessment of the area of freedom, security and justice and the progress made since the Tampere Summit. We believe that it is also very well situated to confront relations between the European Union and United States, and in order to try to somehow transform the discord of the past into the harmony of the present and future.

I would like to point out, because I believe it is significant, that yesterday saw the close of the Summit of the Americas – not in the best possible circumstances – and to say to the Presidency-in-Office that a very important area is being opened up allowing the European Union decisively to make this a priority for the next European Union/Latin America Summit of Heads of State or Government, in Mexico.

I will end, Mr President, by regretting the fact that Mr Schulz is not with us. What the President, Mr Poettering, has said very clearly is that we must not proceed in a hurried fashion. There have been a series of premature candidatures. The ballot box will determine how majorities will be made up and it is clear that, in his proposal, the President of the Commission will have to take account of the results of the European elections. That is what this Parliament voted for. Our group is clearly the majority group and it is destined to continue to be so during the next legislature.

  Goebbels (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Dear Taoiseach, there is an Irish saying to the effect that God invented whiskey in order to prevent the Irish from dominating the world.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the Irish are serious Europeans, however. My political group saw this when we visited Dublin. You are going to tackle the EU’s real problems, quietly but with determination. After Mr Berlusconi’s clowning around and dubious jokes, it is comforting to have people at the helm of Europe who do not have swollen heads and have their feet firmly on the ground. Unfortunately, the reality of Europe is cruel. Growth has broken down in the Union. Unemployment is rising. European ambition is setting the pace, from the draft constitution to the Lisbon process. The necessary stability is set up as orthodoxy, while the United States are recovering growth through entirely unorthodox methods. One of your ministers, Dick Roche, compared the Lisbon process to some sort of Christmas tree on which the successive presidencies have hung their favourite decorations. This image perfectly illustrates the seasonal ritual that this major ambition from 2000 has become.

The Irish Presidency is now proposing going back to basics. The spring summit should concentrate on the fundamental issues, growth and employment, which should become the EU’s prime ambitions. However, there is a nagging question still to be answered: where is the money, where are the budgets to give Europe the resources to fulfil its ambition?

The Union’s budget is negligible. It amounts to less than 1% of the gross European product. In 2003, the Commission did not even manage to spend these meagre funds. In order to fund the Union after 2006, the Commission will propose using the entire budgetary margin that is currently possible, that is, 1.24% of the gross European product. Even though six countries have already announced that they do not intend to increase their contribution, the Europe of the 25 will need more than a minimal level of solidarity if it is to develop.

It would be a good idea for the Presidency to propose new own resources, for example a European tax on carbon dioxide emissions, or a tax at source on savings products rather than the bureaucratic system envisaged in Feira. A European tax of just one single cent per litre of fuel sold in Europe would fund the trans-European networks. That would create more growth while unburdening national budgets. Policy without financial resources is just an empty gesture.

Bring Europe out of its rut, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, dare to do it!

(DE) Perhaps I could also say a few words about Mr Poettering’s speech. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats wants a Commission President from within its ranks. That is all very well. In that case, however, Mr Poettering needs to name names before the election. He cannot expect the citizens of Europe to buy a pig in a poke.

(Applause)

  Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, an exciting six months lie ahead of you, with enlargement, the Constitution and the Spring Summit. However, I think there is more for you to do. As President-in-Office of the Council, you are going to have to decide what course to take with many policies and to shape the Council’s work. I hope that the Christmas period, the presidency handover and the start of a new year have been used as an opportunity to take stock, have given you insight, and that you are ready to move away from a veto-happy intergovernmental two-speed Europe towards a stronger community-focused Europe; from failure to respect Community law – notably the Stability and Growth Pact – to active implementation of Community rules and rulings – we welcome the Commission’s lawsuit; from the nationalisation of European policies towards more Europe-focused domestic policy; away from a culture of blaming the EU to a willingness to share responsibilities; from the end of the moratorium on human embryo research to an agreement on the limits; away from the system of dodging issues and procrastinating towards taking decisions about the directives on the agenda (I am thinking of the Transparency Directive, the Directive on competition in public services, the Takeovers Directive, President-in-Office); away from continuing the new populist debate on the Statute of Members to a decision. You still have 30 hours to reply to the European Parliament’s request for a timetable. Move away from the negative atmosphere that often prevails between the Council, Commission and Parliament towards establishing discussions and public relations which are citizen-friendly, optimistic, honest, which make use of the opportunities offered by enlargement, the Constitution, growth and employment, stability, the internal market, competition and subsidiarity. I ask you to make this about-turn, and in doing so, give our priorities a new direction.

  Napoletano (PSE). – (IT) Mr President-in-Office, I should first of all like to express my greatest respect for the difficult task that your Presidency has ahead of it. We all realise how difficult it will be to carry the Intergovernmental Conference through to a successful conclusion, given that it foundered in Brussels only a few weeks ago. Therefore, the message we should like you to pass on to all the governments in Europe is both simple and clear: accept the responsibility for giving Europe a constitution before the European elections. It is increasingly true that what we do is closely linked to how we function: you must strive to overcome the disputes that have led to this breakdown, for the sake of the greater good.

The fact that the Convention succeeded in drawing up a constitutional text that was also widely supported by this Parliament shows that political and geographical differences are not an insurmountable obstacle. You must vigorously oppose the antihistorical conflict between national interests and Europe, because that is a disease that can rot away the strongest reasons for our staying together.

One last question, Mr President-in-Office: in the concluding debate of the Italian term of office, Mr Berlusconi mentioned an agreement reached in the IGC on 85 points and an acquis, which would leave just one point unsettled. Can you please tell us, Mr President-in-Office, what exactly the Italian Presidency has passed on to you? I am asking because Parliament has so far been asking the Council about this in vain.

  Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, if I have understood the President-in-Office’s speech correctly, I think I perceive a vision behind it which allows us to preserve the momentum from the Intergovernmental Conference. I think we have to see whether there is indeed still a chance of reaching a decision before the European elections. It will be very difficult to sustain public awareness of what has been agreed by the Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference thus far, but not been formally recorded, until December of this year.

We have to be aware that if there is no Constitution, there will also be no Charter of Fundamental Rights. Consequently, citizens will not be voting for the Commission President in the European elections, there will be no such mandate given and no participation for the national parliaments. Instead, a defence union will be formed outside the framework of the European Union, with all that entails for NATO, the transatlantic alliance and access for all European Member States of the European Union. I think that would put us back on track for creating a Europe of individual alliances, and gradually returning to the situation that existed in 1914. For this reason, Mr President-in-Office, I think you hold a great deal of responsibility.

Whatever happens, we cannot allow the decision-making mechanisms in the Council to exceed the thresholds established at Nice. Indeed, we must stay below that threshold at all stages of the negotiations, because our ability to act must be preserved and cannot be allowed to end in a half-hearted compromise. We also need an appropriate balance between large and small states. I think that the large states of Spain and Poland, which are so important to the European Union, must be treated with proper consideration, but they must also be made aware that they share responsibility for ensuring that the European Union continues to develop. I trust your diplomatic skills will produce an appropriate response from these countries.

(Applause)

  Thorning-Schmidt (PSE). – Mr President-in-Office, there are two issues I would like to raise. Firstly, it is good to hear that the IGC has the highest priority for you. I am a bit puzzled by this, however, because you thanked the Italians for their good work but at the same time we understand from the press that you have not been given any notes or any indication as to where agreement was reached. At the same time the Italians flatter themselves that they reached agreement on 95% of the issues. If that is true, I urge you to find those notes in Brussels, finalise the 95% and use your time to make up the last 5%. I urge you to bear in mind that this not only involves consultation and reporting back in March, but will also require firm deadlines to be set for reconvening the summit in May, and a very hard line to be taken on this, otherwise there will be no chance of concluding the IGC before the elections.

The other issue is the Statute for Members. Without a doubt, there will be a populist campaign against the statute over the next few weeks. The main argument will be that the salary is too high. It is high, I agree, but it is vital to remember the price paid for this salary: agreement on the travel expenses rules, which presently allow Members to pocket, tax-free, tens of thousands of euros a year under a very questionable system. We must be mindful of the link between the travel expenses rules and salary. I wish you the best of luck in your efforts.

  Cushnahan (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to wish the President-in-Office and his government colleagues every success during the Irish presidency. While I acknowledge that the Irish presidency has to tread sensitively in pursuing progress on the draft Constitution, I support Commissioner Prodi's warning that failure to reach agreement will inevitably lead to the creation of a two-speed Europe. If unanimous agreement on the Constitutional Treaty cannot be achieved, then the only alternative is the creation of a two-speed Europe. To do otherwise would be to give the power of veto to any eurosceptic Member State.

A two-speed Europe already exists in at least two areas: namely the Schengen Agreement and the single currency. Schengen allowed for full implementation in the countries subscribing to the Single Act, especially as regards the free movement of persons. The decision by the United Kingdom and Ireland to opt out – although in our case this was for unavoidable reasons because of the UK position – did not prevent this from happening.

Additionally, the decision by the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark to opt out of the single currency did not prevent its establishment, which, given the magnitude of the technical problems involved, was a massive achievement by the Commission. Its implementation was a momentous, historic development, representing the largest quantum leap towards political union.

Given these experiences, we should not be alarmed at the prospect of taking similar decisions in other areas rather than face paralysis and stagnation at the hands of eurosceptic Member States. Fundamental to the dream of the founding fathers of our Union, 50 years ago, was the imperative to cede national sovereignty in exchange for the greater sovereignty of a united continent. The proposed Constitution is the fulfilment of that dream, to be pursued, if necessary, without those states where nationalistic chauvinism still rules.

President-in-Office, your challenge is to ensure that the debate on the Constitution is concluded over the next six months; this is a difficult task, but let me wish you every success in this particularly historic task.

  Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Taoiseach, first let me say a few words about Lisbon before I go into the question of external relations. I agree with you and wish you well in your attempt to revitalise the Lisbon Agenda. At the same time, however, I think we need to be aware that Lisbon is not only about economic reform. It also involves investing more in training and further training for individuals. If we expect the European workforce to be more mobile, we must also provide them with a certain amount of stability and social security in return. This is the only way that people will be willing to contribute to the social side of this process of economic modernisation.

Let me come on to the subject of external relations, however. My colleague Mr van den Berg has already referred to the critical situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea. We could add Kashmir, another place where the European Union is being asked to support what appears to be limited rapprochement between India and Pakistan. However, I particularly want to focus on the Middle East. I think that it is up to your Presidency, Taoiseach, to seek to do more in order to ensure the European Union has a profile in the Middle East. Unfortunately over the last six months, a great number of opportunities in the area have been missed. In view of this, I would urge you to try everything in order for the association agreement with Syria, which is already almost ready to be signed, might still be concluded. I understand that the Commission has put in some very good work, but the Council or certain Council members have protested and vetoed it. Whatever the particulars may be, I think we need this kind of agreement with Syria so that we can put pressure on her to negotiate with Israel and to further the peace process. I think it is essential that we actually take advantage of the modest signs of an improved relationship between Israel and Syria.

More generally speaking, however, rather than simply ignoring this trouble spot, the European Union needs to do more on both sides to drive the peace process forward. Just a little while ago, we did see the Geneva plan, which also caused a certain amount of positive unease in Israel because those in favour of peace now also have something on which to build. To close, let me also add that in a long, very inflammatory piece for Die Zeit newspaper, the former Israeli ambassador to Germany, Avi Primor, called upon the European Union to do more to establish peace in Palestine and Israel. I also ask you, Taoiseach, to do more to involve the European Union in this very important peace process.

(Applause)

  Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, the Irish Presidency marks the start of a new, more liberal period after the South European presidential term. The northernmost Member States have been genuinely in favour of both the Internal Market and enlargement. Sometimes it seems that the further we move away from the EU’s heartland towards its geographical outer periphery the more sincere the Community spirit and greater the imagination for building a common Europe.

Promoting economic growth and keeping on top of the Lisbon Agenda will be the most important issues during Ireland’s presidential term. Year in year out, the European Union continues to lag far behind the United States of America. America’s figure for growth in GNP for this year is very much in a class of is own: 3.9%. The objectives of the Lisbon Agenda are slipping away and I believe that the entire strategy for competition is petering out. All the projects agreed at EU level are ready, but the Member States have still not internalised the need for the structural changes the strategy calls for. The Stability and Growth Pact is beginning to creak.

It is especially important to enhance the work of the Competitiveness Council. It must become more active, taking greater responsibility for the basic question that has been put to it: what is each legislative project’s impact on EU competitiveness? For example, how significant will the EU chemicals package and the reappraisal of Kyoto be for EU competitiveness? With these projects the EU is very much in danger of sawing off the branch it is sitting on and risking its competitiveness and prosperity.

If the country holding the presidency had difficulties finding points to get to grips with in the Competitiveness Council earlier on, here they are now on a plate.

  Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, you have rightly placed emphasis on meeting the expectations of our peoples. I can tell you that the people of Essex and other parts of the east of England that I represent would like less interference in their lives by the European Union. They want to run their own affairs.

Our businesses want to sharpen their ability to compete in global markets, not to be weighed down by unnecessary red tape and socialist regulation, much of which originates in Brussels and is then gold plated by our own Labour Government. In particular they want a fair crack of the whip.

The one aspect of the European Union for which there is any enthusiasm is the single market, but British farmers and businessmen have always suspected that the odds were deliberately stacked against them because certain Member States simply ignored the rules. Now the Commission has confirmed that suspicion with its announcement on Monday that France, Belgium and Germany, those great EU enthusiasts, are bottom of the league for implementing internal market rules, and France tops the list of infringement cases. I think immediately of the long-running and illegal ban on British beef.

You said you wanted to focus on the Lisbon Agenda. To give yourself a bit of breathing space, I suggest that the first thing you should do is kick the proposed Constitution firmly into touch. The notion that the Constitution was essential for an enlarged Union is clearly a myth. It was just a vehicle for further political integration and that is something that our citizens simply do not want. Similarly, they do not want European Union involvement in military matters, complicating and duplicating Nato and creating additional tensions with our vital transatlantic allies. The reality is that defence budgets are being slashed across continental Europe and even the superb British armed forces are desperately overstretched and under-equipped. European Union politicians playing bureaucratic games in Brussels will not help this situation.

Finally, Mr President-in-Office, you rightly emphasise your intention to focus on practical human rights issues. One of the first decisions you will need to push through Council is the renewal of targeted sanctions against the ZANU-PF regime in Zimbabwe. I would ask you to respond to Parliament's demands on this matter.

  Laschet (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, today you have unambiguously declared yourself in favour of multilateralism. You have called for the United Nations to be strengthened and mentioned the UN General Secretary’s visit to the European Parliament, which is scheduled for the end of the month. I do not think many presidents-in-office have begun by speaking out so clearly in favour of multilateralism and the United Nations in this House. Moreover, I believe that the challenges we will be discussing in great detail over the coming weeks – international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, disintegrating states, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings – are too much for even the world’s strongest nation to tackle alone. It is multilateral solutions we need.

Mr President-in-Office, I think this is another reason why we need the Constitution, however. The European Union is not ready to put up a united front against the United Nations system. There are too many stakeholders. The European Union is a member of the FAO, with a seat and a vote. As yet the European Union has no legal status in external relations. We have a Commission office in New York. We have a Council office in New York. We need this Constitution to enable the European Union to obtain this legal status and act in this sphere as well. Consequently, both for the purposes of external relations and in terms of working within the United Nations system, where the European Union is the greatest contributor, we need to increase our political influence and express our political strength together. That is why we need to have a Constitution very soon, and I ask you to take that into account during your consultations. If Europe wants influence, there is no place for division. The only way is to act as a community, and your declaration in favour of multilateralism is a very significant starting point.

  Lisi (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President-in-Office, practically all the Members have expressed this Parliament’s hopes that you will succeed in bringing this extraordinary task – the Intergovernmental Conference and the constitution – to a successful conclusion. Good luck, we are right behind you!

Together with these extraordinary tasks, however, you will also have ordinary tasks to deal with, to which I should like to draw your attention. I shall just mention the main headings: the first is research, which was brought up again by Mr Prodi and which we all agree on. There is also, however, an ethical component in the financing of such research – my colleague Mr Liese will be speaking about it – and we should like you to give us your response on this, leaving aside the woolly obscurantism that Mr Pannella mentioned, which does not actually exist.

There are two other issues dear to my heart that I should like to bring to your attention: air transport safety and air passengers’ rights. Unfortunately it took the tragedy of Sharm el-Sheikh to show just how strongly the public feels about this and how much we need to finalise a measure that has been inexplicably stuck in the Council since October last year. Just as inexplicably stuck, Mr President-in-Office, is a measure that this Parliament approved by an overwhelming majority: greater protection for air passengers if they are denied boarding or in the event of cancellations or delays. One government – the German Government – has inexplicably changed its mind, perhaps because it is more sensitive to Lufthansa’s arguments than to the passengers’. I am aware that your government, Mr President-in-Office, was opposed to this measure, but I cannot criticise that because you have always held a consistent position; I am referring instead to those strange, last-minute changes of mind.

I am sure that, in your new garb as President-in-Office of the Council, you will be able to further these measures and bring them to a conclusion, because they are in the interests of the European public and our fellow citizens are awaiting them.

  Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I now raise a different point for the Taoiseach. I want to follow the theme that he raised on safety, particularly with relation to health and consumer policies.

First, Taoiseach, I look forward to working with Minister Martin on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which is crucially important at a time of global disease threats and the threat of bioterrorism.

Second, I look forward to working with your presidency on the implementation of patient mobility. Sadly, in the United Kingdom, as a result of the failure of the British Government's health policies, hundreds of thousands of people are waiting unacceptably long times for operations and treatments. This measure will give them some new hope of earlier treatment.

Third, in your speech you referred to people in Sub-Saharan Africa: 30 million with HIV/AIDS, and 291 million living below the poverty line. I remind you of the inextricable link between health and poverty and urge you to ensure renewed momentum on health and clean water policies, and on debt relief.

Fourth, Taoiseach, allow me take you down a long lane in the county of Meath, to a small business situated there which is known as the Food and Veterinary Office. That office controls and inspects the food, feed, animal welfare and plant health of the European Union: of Member States, Accession States and countries across the world from French Polynesia to the Falklands. It is fundamental to the health and safety of our people. It has just 90 inspectors covering the globe and I ask the presidency to look carefully at that to see how this corner of Ireland, with its EU-wide implications, can be made more effective.

  Liese (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with all those who have said that the Irish Presidency’s most important task is to secure the adoption of a Constitution which is as close as possible to the Convention proposal.

(Heckling)

I believe that in December we explicitly agreed to ask you to produce a consolidated text. Enlargement and the elections are both scheduled for this year, and both will suffer if we do not begin them with a clear message on this subject.

Mr President-in-Office, you mentioned research policy, which is a very important subject. We have to do more on this front, especially in comparison to the United States. The disparity is particularly striking in the fields of biotechnology and medicine. In the US, NIHs (National Institutes of Health) receive USD 28 billion every year for medical and biotechnology research. The EU is spending EUR 2.25 billion over four years under the Sixth Framework Programme, and even adding in everything done in the Member States, the figures are a great deal lower. This is the main reason why young medics and researchers are still migrating to the United States.

That said, we do also need a clear ethical framework for research, and I know that within your own country, as in the European Parliament, opinions vary: on the question of whether the European Union should support research on human embryos, for example. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached on the subject under the Italian Presidency. Commissioner Busquin’s behaviour was also somewhat ambiguous. I think it is now up to you to pick up the ball and run with it. It is your responsibility to work with your Minister for Research and devise a solution that is acceptable to all sides. We cannot allow this matter to be resolved behind closed doors under the comitology procedure. The political responsibility lies with the Council of Ministers, and I call on you to respect this.

  Arvidsson (PPE-DE). (SV) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, speaking as a Swedish Conservative, I welcome the Irish Presidency. It is a new European Union that, in six months’ time, you will hand over to the next country to hold the Presidency. With enlargement occurring during your Presidency, the EU will increase in importance and its words will count for more.

Ireland has great confidence in the work for peace. You took the initiative, helped find a solution to the protracted internal conflict in Ireland and helped normalise the situation there. In spite of what was said at the last EU-Russia summit, I now appeal to you and the Irish Presidency to make use of the confidence you enjoy and to exploit the European Union’s growing importance by taking the initiative to promote a genuine peace dialogue between the parties involved in the war in Chechnya with a view to bringing the atrocities to an end. The war in Chechnya is a focus for the spread of terrorism. It is an abomination for both Russia and Europe, and the war may have far-reaching consequences for peace in our part of the world.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, what you can bring about in terms of peace and freedom in Europe will be greeted with endless gratitude on the part of the peoples of the European Union.

  Ahern, Bertie, Council. Mr President, I shall try to respond to a number of issues as quickly as I can. I should like to thank the honourable Members for their comments on the Irish presidency programme, and for their support and good wishes for the success of the Irish presidency. I have listened closely to the speeches by over 40 Members in today's debate and they confirm my belief not only that this is a challenging time for the Union, but also that if Member States and the institutions work together it ought to be a time of great opportunity for the Union.

Our presidency focus, as far as internal policies are concerned, will be to advance work on a range of fronts and make life better for the citizens of Europe; as many of you pointed out, that is what we should be doing.

We will be unstinting in our efforts to make progress on a new constitutional treaty. Perhaps I will come back to that at the end of my speech. If we feel that there is a real prospect of agreement, we will spare no effort to facilitate the earliest possible agreement, and the support of Parliament will be of particular importance.

I have a few remarks on what Members have said. We welcome the new Member States to the Union. We look forward to completing our work with President Prodi by 1 May, and I hope the success of the wider enlargement process will be carried forward as well. We are continuing to press ahead with the necessary reforms to make the European economy more competitive and capable of providing more and better jobs. We will also be working to ensure a safer Europe that will carry forward the Union's agenda in the area of freedom, security and justice. I went into that in some detail at the outset.

I have noted carefully the many points raised by Members and I would like to thank my Irish colleagues in particular for the important points they raised. I greatly appreciate the opportunity this occasion has allowed me to ensure that the presidency is made aware of issues and concerns. I can assure you that we will reflect on all of them as we take our presidency work forward. My colleague, Mr Roche, will be talking about human rights later on and he will also be taking some of the questions on issues that have been raised today.

I would like to reflect on the advice given to me by many of the leaders of the Groups at the outset. I have carefully noted what was said – not necessarily in order or by whom, though that has also been noted elsewhere. However, they should all recognise their own words. They said that we should insist on mutual respect, restore belief, build solidarity, tell the truth and act in unity. I shall try to do all of that to the very best of my ability.

I want to put on record today that these are values that we share and that we will gear our presidency towards values that are not only important in themselves and fundamental to the vision of Europe, but also essential to the successful functioning of the Union. We might not always succeed in meeting the high standards we have set ourselves, but I want to pledge to you that these values respect, belief, solidarity, honesty and unity are good values, and I certainly will remember them and repeat them to my colleagues, who will be speaking here over the next six months.

I want to thank President Prodi for his promise of support for the presidency. I can say that, as far as we are concerned, the work of President Prodi and his colleagues in preparing for the presidency over many months has been extremely important to us. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for that.

Mr Barón Crespo, Mr Poettering and others raised the issue of the appointment of the new President of the Commission. I have carefully noted all their comments and can assure you that the views of Parliament will be borne firmly in mind. This is only the 14th day of the Irish presidency, but already one thing of which I am certain is that I will not be short of advice on that particular appointment. I would like to thank everyone for that.

Mr Watson recalled that one Irish writer once wrote that 'history is a nightmare from which we are trying to awake'. I should like to recall a phrase about history from the most recent Irish Nobel Prize winner for literature, Seamus Heaney. Working together during the Irish presidency and beyond, Parliament, the Council and the Commission 'can look forward to a time when hope and history rhyme'.

I fully agree with Mr Watson on the importance of restoring belief in the Union and its potentials. We will work with Parliament to achieve those potentials over the next six months.

Mr Bonde referred to the position of small countries in the European Union. I am delighted, in that regard, to appear before you at a time when both the President of Parliament and the President of the Council come from small countries.

My colleague, Mr Collins, said that failure by Europe, including the IGC, cannot be countenanced. The next time the European Council is called upon to agree a constitution for Europe it is essential for there to be a successful outcome. We have now embarked upon that process of consultation and assessment and my dearest wish is to bring the IGC to a successful conclusion. Let me assure Parliament once again that the Irish presidency will spare no effort in trying to facilitate a consensus.

I would like to thank Mr Paisley for his genuine and warm if slightly conditional welcome.

(Laughter)

I have some bad news for him, in that I have learnt a bit from him over the years. I have always greatly admired him and told him as much on the one occasion we met. He has managed very successfully to combine membership of the Assembly at Westminster with membership of the European Parliament, so it should be possible for me to do my job at home and be here at the same time, to help you out as best I can.

(Applause)

I genuinely admire Mr Paisley and respect the mandate he has received. It would be very unfair if I did not acknowledge that. He made a strong point about democracy in Europe, saying that when we draw up constitutions we should put them to the people to secure a popular mandate. He stressed that point several times in his contribution. All I can say in reply is that we always do that in the Republic. That is obviously a further reason why he feels so dearly about my country.

(Laughter and applause)

Mr Wurtz and Mr Collins, in particular, emphasised the need for the Union to actively promote progress in the Middle East, through implementation of the roadmap. Parliament can rely on the Irish presidency to do precisely that. The Union will continue, during our presidency, to express serious concern at the building of the so-called 'security fence'. The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his presidency capacity, will be in the Middle East tonight, engaged in discussions.

I have noted what was said by Mr Poettering, Mr Watson, Mr Cohn-Bendit and others about Chechnya. Again, these are issues that we will be addressing.

I was asked very particularly by Mr Schulz about the European arrest warrant. I should like to make it clear that during its presidency, Ireland will arrange meetings to review the current state of implementation of the arrest warrant across the European Union and issues related to this. Ireland, along with seven other countries has in fact been in a position to put the European arrest warrant into operation since 1 January 2004. We must now try to complete the process.

The human rights situation in many parts of Africa will continue to give cause for concern and will receive our continued attention. Indeed, this presidency will work for a greater commitment to conflict prevention in Africa. There are many facets to this since the causes of conflict in Africa and elsewhere are diverse. The recent agreement in the Council on the African peace facility is an important step forward in Europe's engagement with that continent. We will assist in the development of African peacekeeping capabilities and this presidency will press for early EU action on implementing the commitments made by Member States, with a view to meeting the millennium goals.

I noted when looking at tomorrow's draft agenda that a joint motion for a resolution on the assassination of Archbishop Courtney, an Irishman, is to be considered. I would like to thank Parliament for according attention to this matter.

He was a man who worked hard in many countries but in his latest role, as Papal Nuncio to Burundi, he really believed in the peace process there. I want to thank you for remembering him in the European Parliament.

(Applause)

A number of Members have raised the issue of debt relief. I think you know what the Irish position is on that; but, to reiterate, the Irish presidency position is that the European Union has been an enormously generous donor for debt relief purposes. It has contributed over USD 900 million to the World Bank Trust Fund for debt relief. In addition, the Commission is committed to writing off bilateral debts owed to it by countries qualifying for debt relief.

This is a considerable success and we will use whatever opportunities arise during our presidency to promote debt relief. We have a particular position, and accordingly we can do many things.

I should like to move quickly on to the issue of human rights, because many speakers and all the leaders mentioned it, and many Members made strong and moving pleas for Europe to place human rights at the centre of its external policies. This plea resonates strongly with the presidency because the presidency has made effective promotion of human rights a central objective. We shall make every effort to move forward the human rights agenda across the broad range of the Union's external policy, including the 60th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. As I said, my colleague Mr Roche will be making a statement later today on behalf of the presidency.

I was asked by a number of speakers to be precise about the Lisbon Strategy. I shall say three things about that strategy. Clearly, because of the economic situation in Europe and elsewhere in the world, progress on implementing the strategy has not been possible to the extent hoped for by António Guterres four years ago when he was here. Each year, we have tried to highlight issues and highlight what we need to do in Europe. The Irish presidency is determined to focus on the implementation of the core objectives of sustainable growth and employment: they are the two issues we have singled out from what is admittedly a long list.

This is not to say that we should have employment and growth at any cost. We are not saying that. Such an approach would be both short-sighted and counterproductive. To those Members who mentioned social inclusion, I say that this is one of the issues dear to my heart that we are not in any way sacrificing.

We are committed to policies that decouple growth and the use of resources, and to the European social model. I am very committed to the European social model. I am reminded that the Social Charter was brought in 14 years ago when I was President of the Social Affairs Council. We have provided continual follow-up since then, with a successful outcome.

The second point I want to make is that the report by Wim Kok is in my view excellent. He focuses on four specific areas to which we are committed. Many conference seminars and initiatives are taking place, not only in Ireland, but elsewhere in Europe, other Member States having established a tripartite social conference with the social partners – employers and trade unions – to try to build on the Wim Kok report. We shall do our best to implement it.

I shall say a final few words. Everyone except two speakers spoke on the IGC. The two who did not spoke on the Food and Veterinary Office in Meath, which I opened. I very much take to heart what you said. Food safety is an enormously important issue today, and that objective will be pursued by our ministerial colleague Mr Martin.

Everyone else spoke on the European Convention. Admittedly, a minority of those who spoke would like me to forget about it altogether, but about 95% took the opposing view. The reason I am not overstating what the Irish presidency can do is that I cannot carry this through alone. I do not want to come back to the newly elected Parliament in July and make excuses about not having achieved X, Y or Z.

I am fully committed to trying to finalise the constitution. I will do all I can to finalise it. I will follow the mandate given to me by the European Council, which is to consult, make an assessment and report back in March. If we can move on from that to an IGC, I will act accordingly; if I believe that it is not possible to reach a consensus, I will not, because I think a second failure will only make life more difficult for the future. I passionately believe that making progress in the shorter term would be better and safer. I share that view with both the President of Parliament and Mr Prodi. We need the help of Parliament. We need the help of Member States, and of the European Council, so that people shift their positions.

The facts are simple. I said to the leaders in Dublin on 19 December that if all parties maintain their present positions there is no hope that I can bring this matter to a conclusion. I do not want to mention any particular country because it is not fair to do so and matters are not so simple.

I did not say in my opening remarks, contrary to what was picked up by some, that the work of the Italian presidency in connection with the Brussels summit was not useful. It is pointless for me to go back to compromises that were never on the table. The work done by the European Convention last summer, which you can all rightly feel proud of, and the post-Naples work concluded towards the end of November and in early December represents the initial position of the Irish presidency. On other issues agreement has not yet been reached, so that will be our starting point.

I urge Parliament to do whatever it can, and provide whatever support it can give, to prompt people to take decisions sooner rather than later. Mr President, I say to you and to President Prodi that, otherwise, that there will be a new presidency – which is not a problem, as presidencies come and go – but there will also be a new Parliament, a new Commission and a new set of circumstances. Many of the individuals who negotiated the Convention may or may not be around to continue the process. People are at least clear about many of the issues on which agreement has almost been reached, if not in full; in a year's time they will not be so clear. It will be far more difficult to finalise the Constitution.

I will do my best; I cannot do it on my own. If we work together – Parliament, the Commission and the Irish presidency – and try to get people to shift their positions sooner rather than later, we can complete this task. If we do not, it will become a long, drawn-out issue.

Go raibh maith agaibh.

(Loud and sustained applause)

  Prodi, President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the speech Bertie has made makes my job much easier, because the Presidency and the Commission are in complete agreement. The Dublin meeting laid the foundations for close cooperation and the essential points he has put forward are shared by the Commission.

In the very few minutes available to me I should like to recall a number of aspects that are of the greatest political significance: first, an appeal for a general effort to support political pluralism. The speech made about the United Nations and the role it should have and the urgent call for human rights must be the basis for our future work; on this we agree. It was also extremely important to mention the strong, positive relationship between the United States and Europe, and it is interesting that the whole of Parliament accepted that, while adding that the relationship should be on an equal footing. Remember, however, that an equal footing is not something that is given lightly: we can only gain an equal footing if we succeed in building a strong Europe that can make decisions, a Europe that is truly able to negotiate on an equal footing. This is the task that we, together with the Irish Presidency, must carry forward.

With regard to enlargement, and in response to several Members’ queries, I can assure Parliament that we are moving with the utmost speed on the appointment of the new Commissioners. I repeat, by the end of February, after I have been round all the capitals and shortlisted all the Commissioners, I will bring you their names here. You must be aware that these Commissioners – you are well aware of this – will only be here for a few months because after that they will have to be nominated. I have, however, asked the Heads of State or Government of the new Member States to put forward the names of strong candidates, people who will be able to stay on, so that there can be continuity in political action, so that the continuity of the Commissioners that they nominate can make up for the fact that these countries are only now joining the Union. In answer to Mr Poettering, you will be able to see the political balance as well as the personal abilities of these new Commissioners during their interviews. I can assure you that the results so far have been quite flattering: the governments of the various states have been sending us people who have held or still hold the highest political offices in their countries. I believe this will also be imitated by the current Member States when the time comes to nominate their new Commissioners, because the Commission is becoming an increasingly political body with ever greater political responsibilities.

On the subject of the constitution, there has been a widespread call that we have to acknowledge: Convention, Convention, Convention! Any attempt to move in a different direction is doomed to failure, doomed to produce no results, and I believe the way in which Bertie Ahern has approached this challenge is the best we can hope for and is the most likely to succeed. We are all too aware, Mr President, that no success is assured and that the situation is difficult but, by looking carefully at our current difficulties and the great result that the Commission has given us, we will surely get good results.

Lastly, I should like to mention the matter of Lisbon. I take on board Mr Doyle’s impassioned appeal, when he put his finger on the spot and quite rightly said that we have talked a lot about Lisbon but achieved very little. Unfortunately, this is true. We have been talking about Lisbon now for four years, and so, once again, I am going to make appeal: let us direct every possible effort towards human resources. We need human resources at all levels: at a national level in compulsory and university education, and at European Union level in top-level research. We need a joint effort. We cannot achieve the results outlined in Lisbon when we realise that 400 000 European researchers are currently working in the United States – I repeat, 400 000 European researchers are currently working in the United States – and when we realise that, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives, we will have to raise the number of our researchers by 700 000 over ten years, or we shall not achieve the Lisbon objectives.

The most competitive society in the world does not come about all by itself, as you are well aware, and here we come up against a serious contradiction. On several occasions – in my speech a moment ago and at other times – I have proposed that major laboratories should be set up; we have even included this item in the financial perspective; we have also talked about the European Science Foundation to be able to coordinate cutting-edge research, for otherwise this research will not achieve the results we want. It is quite clear that we really have to do this, but we cannot do it when letters arrive proposing cuts in the European budget, as if money spent at a European level were money down the drain, as if this money did not in fact achieve greater synergies and have a greater effect on development than money spent at a national level.

(Applause)

Until we get rid of this idea, and of course choose the fields in which money spent in Europe is most effective – although there is no doubt at all that research is an area where it is most effective – we shall not be able to have a truly great Europe.

Lastly, a final observation on the Stability and Growth Pact: Mr Cohn-Bendit, with his forceful and youthful vehemence

(Amused protests)

– or rather, with his forceful and formerly youthful vehemence – made a speech on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and criticised the Commission for its decision. I must tell you all that this was a painful decision that I found difficult to make. I am well aware that making decisions like this one has its consequences. I had to make it for a simple reason: rules have to be obeyed, even if it does not make me happy to do so.

(Applause)

This is a democratic principle, and so it was the Commission’s duty to call for the rule to be obeyed, but at the same time it has also been the Commission’s duty to prepare the changes needed for the future. I have very often been generous in this direction, ladies and gentlemen – perhaps too much so – but the finance ministers have never given me any leeway in the matter. I therefore call on you to help the Commission – or rather I call on us to help each other – to submit proposals that can truly bring new development and new energy to Europe’s economic policy.

(Applause)

  President. That concludes the debate.

WRITTEN STATEMENTS (RULE 120)

  Ahern, Nuala (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I wish to draw the attention of the presidency to the Euratom Treaty. This Treaty has been part of the EC since 1957. After 50 years this Treaty promoting nuclear energy is obsolete. However it, together with any new constitutional treaty, will be the de facto Treaty of the EU. Many citizens will not accept this as the constitution of the EU and if referenda are held, as they must be in some states, I believe there will be no majority for a constitution promoting nuclear technology.

I would like to thank you particularly Mr Ahern, President-in-Office of the Council, for joining with Austria and proposing a new convention on Euratom to review this treaty. I wish you success, as I am sure that the future of this new constitution depends on this happening. I regret that the Convention avoided this issue, and particularly regret that the delegate from the Verts/ALE Group, Johannes Voggenhuber, neglected to make progress on it, being drawn instead by a grand design for a new constitution. However, it is not too late: Austria and Ireland have led the way where others must follow.

  Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Irish presidency, viewed from a Scottish point of view, demonstrates very clearly why Scotland would be better off independent.

Ireland, a smaller country than Scotland, will be setting the agenda and leading the EU decision-making process, while Scotland does not even have a vote in the Council of Ministers.

Ireland will lead the process of welcoming ten new member states – many smaller than Scotland – into the EU. These new members will have full rights of participation including votes on Fisheries Policy, while Scotland is a mere observer.

I wish Ireland success in its presidency and look forward to the day when an independent Scotland takes its rightful place in the world – better off independent!

IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTIN
Vice-President

President. – I do not know whether Sir Robert Atkins wishes to make his traditional point – which I would fully support – at this juncture, but if so he may!

  Atkins (PPE-DE). – Mr President, since you invite me – and I have been provoked by colleagues – what is the point in running an assembly which indicates that votes are due to take place at 12 noon, but which then start at 12.40 p.m.? Surely we should be able to manage our affairs efficiently. Would you please carry that concern back to the Presidency of Parliament.

(Applause)

  President. I will do that.