Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 1 April 1998 - Strasbourg

5. Votes

  President . – We shall now proceed to the vote.

Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission by equipment used outdoors (COM(98)0046 – C4‐0122/98‐98/0029(COD))

(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)

***

Proposal for a Council Directive on the limitation of the emission of oxides of nitrogen from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes (COM(97)0629 – C4‐0107/98‐97/0349(SYN))

(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)

***

Proposal for a Council Directive on the extension of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, on the Framework Agreement on part‐time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (COM(98)0084 – C4‐172/98‐98/0065(CNS))

(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)

***

Recommendation for second reading (A4‐0096/98), on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Council Regulation on decentralized cooperation (C4‐0008/98‐95/0159(SYN)) (Rapporteur: Mr Vecchi)

(The President declared the common position approved (as amended) )

***

Report (A4‐0113/98) by Mr Murphy, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on special provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver"s seat and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC (COM(97)0276 – C4‐0545/97‐97/0176(COD))

  Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, today I do not want to ask for signatures against criminality in Brussels, although we have only until Friday to do so, but I would like to propose, in accordance with Article 129, that the Murphy report should be referred back to the responsible committee, since there are over 100 amendments, which are mainly of a purely technical nature, and to make a SLIM initiative myself. Two additional directives about measurements, dimensions and technical features of buses are added. We should therefore agree in a working party on how we intend to proceed with these three directives, in accordance with the rules.

  von Wogau (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as chairman of the committee responsible, I must first inform you that the committee decided by a small majority to bring the Murphy report in this form to a sitting of the European Parliament. I therefore do not speak as the committee chairman, but as a member of the Group of the European People"s Party, and as such I support the proposal to refer this report back to the committee.

Why? It has been my opinion for many years that we as the European Parliament can in future no longer afford to pass technical legislation by means of hundreds of amendments.

(Applause)

Since Maastricht, we have had co‐decision in these matters. The new directives are no longer directives of the Council alone, but directives of the European Parliament and of the Council. As Parliament, in the case of this legislation, we can contribute to ensuring that the protection of the health and safety of citizens and of disadvantaged people is taken into account. That is extremely important. We have always done it successfully in the past.

But what we need here are not 112 technical amendments, which none of those present understands and about which no‐one knows what interests lie behind the individual amendments. We need one amendment which states that buses must be designed which are suitable for the disabled. The execution of this legislative instruction of the European Parliament is then the responsibility of the technical bodies.

(Applause)

This is called the legislative procedure of reference to technical standards, which I have always supported and which must always be the way in which we operate in future. For this reason, I personally would be happy if it was possible to discuss it again in the committee, so that we can find a sensible solution in this matter. I will now make a personal declaration: If this proposal is not referred back to the committee, I shall stay here, but I shall not take part in the vote. I ask that this should be minuted, because as a parliamentarian I am not prepared to cooperate in this nonsensical kind of legislation.

(Applause)

  Murphy (PSE), rapporteur. – Madam President, I hope not to take as much time as Mr von Wogau. I have some sympathy with what he says that we have been dealing with a technical matter here but I would ask the House to consider this. Are we saying to the citizens of Europe that we are not competent enough to actually legislate on something which will affect people's lives? I put it to you, the committee had every opportunity to debate this report. They had every opportunity to discuss with me the amendments I was moving.

I accept that there are a lot of amendments but many of these are absolutely necessary. If it is so technical for members on the other side not to have been able to understand what is going on, why were some 20 amendments actually moved by members from the other side of the House? I would argue that they did understand what the issues at stake here were and I would come back to what the Commission said last night. Commissioner Bangemann, when this point was put to him, said he could see no reason why Parliament should not actually take a position on the report and, indeed, he gave an indication that the Commission was prepared to accept 22 of our amendments.

So I say to Members on the other side of the House, we have had every opportunity to debate this issue, yes it is complicated, yes it is technical, but let us not abrogate our responsibilities. We have an important job to do here; let us get on with it.

  Metten (PSE). ‐ (NL) Mr President, I have just one question for the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy who was speaking here in person. There have been three or four debates, and he has had every opportunity to submit an amendment, as just noted. I would like to know why he did not accept that responsibility.

  von Wogau (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to reply to that personally. As chairman of the committee, I asked the rapporteur to proceed, as I said, by proposing an amendment about the disabled, but to refer the rest of all of it to the technical bodies. It was then shown that there were difficulties in doing this. I therefore proposed setting up a working party to look for a sensible solution. I proposed this before the vote in the committee. We then voted on it, but the majority party in this House voted otherwise. The result was that the Murphy report, which in my opinion was not ready for discussion, came to the House against my will as committee chairman. I am therefore not now speaking as the committee chairman, but as a member of the Group of the European People"s Party. That is my answer to what Mr Metten has said.

(Applause and heckling)

  Donnelly, Alan (PSE). – Madam President, I particularly want to respond to the comments by Mr von Wogau. I joined this House in 1989 and under his predecessor, Mr Beumer, we dealt with a mountain of technical legislation which went through this House to complete the internal market and it is a nonsense for the Economic Committee chairman to say that we are not competent to deal with this legislation in this House.

The reason why they do not want this on the floor today is because they voted against the amendments to help the disabled in the design of buses and coaches. That is why they do not want the legislation on the floor of this House. I tell you, disabled people around Europe now are watching to see how the Christian Democrats vote on this issue because we have passed amendments in the committee to support the disabled and they want this report off the agenda.

(The matter was referred back to the committee responsible)

***

Report (A4‐0102/98) by Mrs Lulling, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, on the proposals for European Parliament and Council Regulations amending

I.  Council Regulation (EEC) 3330/91 on the statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States (COM(97)0252 – C4‐0248/97‐97/0155(COD))

II. Council Regulation (EEC) 3330/91 on the statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States, with specific reference to the nomenclature of products (COM(97)0275 – C4‐0257/97‐97/0162(COD))

(In successive votes, Parliament adopted the two legislative resolutions)

***

Report (A4‐0114/98) by Mr Pronk, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a Council Decision on measures of financial assistance for innovative and job‐creating small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) – The Growth and Employment Initiative (COM(98)0026 – C4‐0138/98‐98/0024(CNS)

Before the vote:

  Pronk (PPE), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, there was some confusion yesterday about the Commission"s reply regarding Amendment No 3. Is it possible for the Commission to give further clarification? That was my first point, Mr President.

My second point is a request to you. Would it be possible to vote on Amendment No 20 before Amendment No 7? It is the same text, but its placing is different.

And thirdly, Mr President, in the English version of Amendment No 19 the term “evaluation’ is used. This is wrong. It should be assessment. Could this please be altered, and could it be adjusted accordingly in the other languages? This is what I wanted to ask.

  van den Broek, Member of the Commission. – The Commission can accept the second part of the third amendment in the following terms: ’the programme will be open to SMEs in all sectors including SMEs in the third system’.

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

***

Report (A4‐0100/98) by Mrs Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty to certain categories of horizontal state aid (COM(97)0396 – C4‐0512/97‐97/0203(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

***

Report (A4‐0101/98) by Mr Sindal, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, on the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (COM(97)0469 – C40527/97‐97/0249(CNS)) and the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Towards a new shipbuilding policy’ (COM(97)0470 – C4‐0548/97)

Before the vote:

  Megahy (PSE). – Madam President, could the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy set our minds at rest by explaining that all the amendments are of a non‐technical kind?

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

***

Report (A4‐0105/98) by Mrs Schörling, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Commission"s communication on the European Union"s follow‐up to the world summit for social development (COM(96)0724 – C4‐0142/97)

‐ With regard to Amendment No 2 of the Group of the Party of European Socialists

  Schörling (V), rapporteur. – (SV) Madam President, this concerns an oral amendment, one word. It is about replacing the word – and I am using the English text – “integration’ with “inclusion’. Those who wrote the amendment, Mr van Velzen and Mrs Schmidbauer, also agree with me that this amendment should be put forward.

(The President noted that there were no objections to the oral amendment)

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

***

Report (A4‐0085/98) by Mr Rocard, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the communication from the Commission on guidelines for the negotiation of new cooperation agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries (COM(97)0537 – C4‐0581/97)

Before the vote on paragraph 60:

  Liese (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I beg my colleagues' pardon for having to speak again. I think that we could have prepared some things better in committee, and not have burdened our colleagues with so many individual votes and oral amendments. We had a problem, which has now resulted in a translation problem in paragraph 60. Before the vote in the committee, we did not have the German translation of the amendments before us. The result was that an error which I consider to be serious crept into paragraph 60, because this paragraph is very important, because it concerns the extension of trade preferences to least developed countries which have not been ACP countries until now.

The amendment which I have submitted in English together with Mr Corrie, said that the trade preferences were removed by this extension. The German version, which I only received after the vote in the committee, now says: ’which removes every discrimination’. I therefore ask that the English version of the amendment by Corrie and Liese should be taken as the basis for translation into all the other languages, and that they should be adjusted accordingly.

  Rocard (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Mr Liese is right and his comments also hold for the French version. So, in this case, the English version shall be deemed authentic.

‐ With regard to Amendment No 1

  Rocard (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an extremely important point. It will not have escaped you that the report does not mention the budgetary cost of cooperation. Power struggles, evaluations of situations, do not fall within our jurisdiction, any more than valuation does. There is some reason for the Committee on Budgets to have qualms about this. We greatly respect the power of Parliament. But the Committee on Budgets clearly understands why we did not tackle the issue of an overall determination of the volume of aid: it would be a symbolic figure, which would trouble all of the Treasuries and, for at least a year, play a key role in all North‐South debates across the entire planet. Consequently, we wanted to show the Committee on Budgets that we accepted all its concerns for procedure.

Personally, I accept six of the seven paragraphs of the amendment. The only one that poses a problem is 80b. It clearly explains that the financial organization of new agreements should be in line with a context of rigour and in a concern for budgetary efficiency, which leads one to assume that European cooperation efforts with the ACP countries should take on more than their fair share of budgetary rigour. This will be the object of political debate. It would be unacceptable to settle this issue here.

This explains my request for a split vote, in which I suggest voting against Article 80b but accepting all other parts, for we are also concerned with budgetary rigour.

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

***

Explanations of vote

‐ Lulling report (A4‐0102/98)

  Desplaces (I‐EDN), in writing. – (FR) The Group of Independents for a Europe of Nations fully supports all proposals aimed at lightening the administrative costs on business, particularly on SMEs. In this case, the Commission proposes simplifying both the declarations made by businesses with less than ECU 100 000 of intracommunity trade per year and the combined nomenclature serving as a database on intracommunity trade.

The implementation of the single market and the abolition of border controls will have the consequence of abolishing the corresponding VAT and statistical declarations, whose reliability was assured by customs officials. The need for information, both for the government as well as for businesses and professional organizations has not, however, disappeared.

Nevertheless, the system of declaration put in place by the European Union has certain weaknesses which we wish to point out. In fact, Intrastat"s main weakness, apart from the cost of the system, is the extent of incoherence in the results, which gives rise to a high factor of uncertainty with regard to the actual business performance of a particular Member State. Thus, normally, the imports of a Member State should be equal to the sum of the exports of other Member States to that country. The total difference is around 4.6 %. By using one figure rather than another, the trade surplus of Germany, around ECU 19 billion, would be reduced to 4 billion, whilst the French deficit of ECU 6.4 billion would be more than doubled.

With regard to declarations of trade in goods, Member States have the possibility of requesting further figures concerning country of origin, region of origin or destination, the port or airport where the goods were unloaded and the statistical procedure.

With regard to a simplification of the combined nomenclature, our group has tabled an amendment. In fact, it is necessary to protect specific information for regional products, and more particularly, products of guaranteed origin. For example, in the case of wine it is absolutely essential that the professional and interprofessional organizations continue to have a good knowledge of intracommunity trade. The wines from Bordeaux, Côtes du Rhône, Burgundy and Champagne are all specific products requiring both a knowledge and a specific management of the market in order to protect specific production regions and, thus, the rural world. Community legislation must not, therefore, bring the specificities of Member States and their regions all down to the same level.

‐ Pronk report (A4‐0114/98)

  Bébéar (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Following the extraordinary European Council of Luxembourg last November, and in the wake of the new Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Parliament had requested the strengthening and extension of measures in support of SMEs. For the past ten years they have been the only creators of real and stable jobs.

In this economic environment, there is currently a category of company which is showing a particular growth in net jobs: the startup firm or non‐profit making SMEs. They are an excellent tool for getting unskilled youths and the long term unemployed back to work and they need special help in order to develop.

The voluntary sector that they make up is still not easy to define. The act of making a profit with the sole aim of creating and perpetuating jobs is worthy of an original type of aid at European level so as to complement the national measures already in existence: financial aid, reduction of costs, more favourable calculation of taxes and so on.

The Pronk report has analysed this new order in the economy and employment well. Its solution to the problems of obtaining bank loans and capital improvements has been long awaited by this sector, which is halfway between the market sector and the public service sector.

I therefore support this report because it provides further financial resources which are adapted to the specific needs of this new category of business, so promising in the area of job creation and with strong growth potential.

  Caudron (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I would like to congratulate Mr Pronk for the quality of his work and I am extremely pleased with this effort on behalf of innovative and job‐creating SMEs.

The setting up of a “risk‐capital window’ is in itself a necessary tool and one which may be profitable in the long term, both in the creation of businesses and the creation of jobs. In this sense, I think that the idea of the transnational company is interesting because you can also see in this another facet of the idea of European citizenship. Above and beyond the strong symbols which forge European identity, it is necessary to make it concrete in the daily lives of all Europeans.

It is to be regretted that the budgetary commitment is less than that desired by the European Parliament but I hope that, given the declarations of the Luxembourg Summit, the Commission will make further efforts in the area of innovative actions and projects for the labour market.

Although I subscribe to the fact that support must be concentrated on companies with less than 100 employees, I am a great deal more circumspect with regard to the evaluation procedure, which seems to me a little too long, particularly if you want to undertake adjustments in order to respond better to the expressed requests. Finally, I am supportive of an external audit of the programme and especially of the innovative character of these jobs.

Apart from one or two reservations, on the form rather than the content, I support this report and I would like to remind everyone of my commitment, all ideological assumptions aside, to research into all possible ways of improving the situation of our citizens.

  Desplaces (I‐EDN), in writing. – (FR) Small and medium‐sized enterprises are the linchpin of business in the European Union, over 90 % of them employing less than 150 people. According to the 5th Eurostat report on business, they represent 66 % of the total jobs in the European Union and between 1988 and 1995 were virtually the only net creators of jobs.

This situation may seem paradoxical. In fact, businesses, and in particular SMEs, are regularly subjected to increases in their administrative costs and legislative constraints, largely linked to Community legislation. Nevertheless, the impact of national legislation must not be under‐estimated, like the 35 hour law in France, for example.

What sort of support should be given to SMEs?

Firstly, the financial needs of SMEs must be highlighted. In fact, very often they have problems linked both to their development, and consequently their capital needs, but also – and this must not be overlooked – cash flow problems linked to late payment on the part of their clients. The authorities must set an example. Very often they are the worst offenders and this situation must be remedied.

With regard to capital needs, the principle of “risk‐capital’ must be developed. This system, which is extremely developed in the United States and Japan, must at all costs be developed in the Member States of the European Union. An entrepreneur very often puts all of his financial resources into setting up a company and finds himself short of cash when it comes to financing the development of the business.

Concerning European Union financial assistance, it is perfectly logical that these funds should not be exclusively for the benefit of large businesses. The different subsidies are one thing, but I would like to remind you that SMEs suffer as a result of the weight and size of administrative and legislative costs imposed on them. How many so‐called health and safety standards have hindered the development of SMEs? It is not possible to count them but anyone who listens to those who run the companies will know how much they weigh them down.

Finally, the Group of Independents for a Europe of Nations is in favour of the principle of sexual equality and have thus voted against the amendment which anticipated discriminating in favour of businesses run by women. It is all of the SMEs that need help. The issue is the reduction of unemployment through job creation, regardless of the sex of the person in charge of the company.

  Hyland (UPE), in writing. – The proposed Growth and Employment Initiative of financial measures for innovative and jobcreating small and medium‐sized enterprises must be strongly supported.

In our group, we have always stressed the essential role that small companies can play and are playing in generating employment and economic growth. I therefore welcome the Pronk report.

Small and medium‐sized companies in the European Union can have up to 250 employees. In Ireland, SMEs generally have less than 50 employees. Under the third element of the Initiative, namely, allocations to cover the cost of guarantees to promote an increase in the availability of loans to SMEs supported by guarantee schemes operating in the Member States, priority is to be given to companies with less than 100 employees. I would like to urge that a similar priority be provided for such companies under the first element of the Initiative.

Every effort must be made to strengthen the growth potential of SMEs. This means providing access to risk capital for new and early‐stage small companies through investments in relevant specialized Venture Capital Funds.

I urge the Council to rapidly approve the proposal so that we can make early progress in opening up new possibilities for job creation, particularly for companies employing less than 50 people. It is equally essential that information about the new SME Initiative be made available in Ireland and the other Member States.

  Schörling (V), in writing. – (SV) The Green Group in the European Parliament supports the proposal for financial assistance for innovative and job‐creating SMEs. The shortage of “risk capital’ has long been a problem for SMEs.

We consider it particularly important that Venture Capital Funds are set up for companies operating in the tertiary sector, that is, public health, education and culture, and that information about the assistance reaches women heads of SMEs, who account for around 30 per cent of all active entrepreneurs in small and medium‐sized enterprises.

  Theonas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The proposal under discussion is included in the more general framework which the European Union is setting up for employment, and is based on promotion of the so‐called entrepreneurial spirit and overthrowing of the rules of present labour and welfare law by fostering ‚active’ employment promotion measures.

We would support any action, albeit isolated, which could contribute to tackling the very acute problems faced by SMEs, particularly the smallest of them, since they will be exacerbated by the establishment of EMU and the single currency.

Of course, we do not deceive ourselves about the scale of the results such action could have, firstly because of its objective scope and secondly because the policies exercised as a whole by the European Union and its Member States are forcing hundreds of thousands of SMEs into bankruptcy every year as they cannot stand up to unrestrained competition. And of course, the jobs lost can never be compensated by the limited, and as a rule, short term employment caused by the subsidies provided from time to time. Besides, as the Commission's proposal most characteristically puts it, the specific programme aims to support general policy framework as defined by the guidelines on employment and the general direction of economic policies, with their familiar consequences for jobs and unemployment.

Though the budget of ECU 420 million envisaged for the three years 1998‐2000 is a very small sum with which to assist SMEs, it could contribute something, mainly via the mechanism of providing venture capital and the loan guarantee mechanism, granted the particular difficulty that SMEs encounter in finding external sources of funding and gaining access to the credit system. In our opinion, this fact highlights a more general problem that has arisen due to the complete liberalization of the banking system and the operation of credit institutions on purely financial and market criteria. This has been to the detriment of their function as a lever for the development and support of the productive base and economic activity. The same problem is highlighted by the general restrictions applicable to state aid, which is being severely cut, if not reduced to zero, by the Commission"s approval procedure. The proposal that SMEs should benefit from state aid exemptions by category could contribute towards assisting SMEs, though it could not, of course, deal with the whole problem that stems from the European Union's more general choices.

With reference to the specific programme's implementation, we consider it necessary for the financial assistance to be focused on SMEs employing fewer than 100 people, which are objectively those that face more survival and modernization problems.

We also agree with the proposal to include, as eligible priority objectives, SMEs active in the areas of public health, education and culture.

In addition, we think it necessary to monitor whether the aid results in the creation of real full‐time jobs, and it is essential that sanctions must be imposed on those who infringe that principle.

Concerning the impact of such programmes on employment, we must stress that there are already similar mechanisms, either via the EIB loan guarantees or the facility it provides SMEs by subsidizing loan interest, or via the respective activities envisaged by the multi‐annual SME programmes which, however, have been shown incapable of bringing about a substantial improvement of the unequal environment in which SMEs operate. We fear, however, that since the European Union is not providing sufficient resources from the Community budget to lead to effective vertical and horizontal interventions, which are far removed from the rationale of thrift, full competition and world‐wide liberalization of the markets, any such intervention will have no practical results.

‐ Berès report (A4‐0100/98)

  Caudron (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I would like to congratulate Mrs Berès on both the form and content of her work. Indeed, such a subject, if not tackled from a perspective of cooperation, might lead to a debate or a clash of national views and ideas so diverse and varied that it could end up in complete blockage.

I therefore support our rapporteur"s recommendations and I share the Commission"s concern to reduce the time dedicated to examining horizontal state aid.

I also support Pervenche Berès" amendments which try to bring Parliament and the Commission together, within the institutional framework, to examine the exemptions granted. If some despondent spirits may criticize it for a certain timidness in this request for communication, I would like to remind them that only a few years ago such a request would have been simply out of the question.

I also think that it should be made obligatory for Member States to publish a list of aid granted which falls below the agreed threshold in the Official Journal. This desire for transparency is not only commendable but also necessary to remove all suspicion with regard to the use of public funds.

Finally, I consider this text to be an important step towards the simplification of administrative procedures which will enable greater efficiency in the support of efforts undertaken in what must constitute the priority of priorities: the fight against unemployment!

  Darras (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Although we have not yet given an opinion on the subject, as a member of Parliament"s Committee on Regional Policy, I agree wholeheartedly with our rapporteur, Mrs Berès.

Indeed, given that state aid represents a considerable and constantly increasing sum, it is good that the Commission is trying to facilitate the way in which the simplest cases are treated by not raising particular problems with regard to competition, as these are by far the most numerous cases. It is good that the exemption rules are clear and that they will be significantly publicized within Member States. This is why I am in favour of the rapporteur"s Amendment No 3.

However, I would like the European Commission to inform the European Parliament fully of the exemptions by category, in particular with regard to aid with a regional purpose. I consider it unacceptable that the Committee on Regional Policy was not informed about the agreement signed between Commissioner Wulf‐Mathies and Commissioner van Miert on regional policy and competition policy until after both the lobbyists and the media.

Similarly, I fully share the rapporteur"s opinion that local public services should be added to the list of grants open to benefit from exemptions by category. Indeed, as I have observed in my constituency of Pas‐de‐Calais, these grants form an integral part of the economic and social cohesion policy within a particular region. In no way do they therefore cause distortions in competition.

‐ Sindal report (A4‐0101/98)

  Ahlqvist, Andersson, Hulthén, Lööw, Theorin and Waidelich (PSE), in writing. – (SV) We would like to thank the rapporteur for a thorough report on aid to shipbuilding. We would like to point out that it is of the utmost importance for the functioning of global competition in the shipbuilding sector that this sector can also operate without state subsidies. Until such time as a necessary OECD agreement comes into force, there must be considerable vigilance over the aid which is allowed by the European Union in order to avoid distortions of competition. It is therefore particularly important that Amendment Nos 25, 26, 27 and 29 receive the support of the European Parliament. The Community's actions must strive for healthy global competition in the shipbuilding industry.

  Caudron (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Shipbuilding has been a problem for many years. We are now at a turning point in history.

I would like to remind you that, over the last five years, every job lost within the European shipbuilding industry has seen a corresponding job created within the Korean shipbuilding industry. It is neither low salaries nor the organization of industry which have contributed to Korea"s domination of this sector but the reciprocal guarantees of the conglomerates, with Korean government backing.

In Europe, any aid provided to a shipyard in difficulties leads the European Commission to impose a reduction in capacity, which is not the case in Korea, nor Japan, nor the United States.

This has had four results: Europe is constrained by rules which do not apply to its competitors; tens of thousands of jobs have been destroyed; Europe has lost a large share of the market; nevertheless, as opposed to the case of the steel industry, protection of remaining production capacity is not guaranteed.

It is now proposed that the European Union should unilaterally impose the principles anticipated in the OECD agreement. We have to be pragmatic about this!

If, in the year 2000, we consider that the market has been sufficiently stabilized for us to be able to do without contract support, I would agree to remove it. But at the moment no‐one can say what will happen. The Commission itself recognizes the need for appropriate measures.

I would therefore request that developments in the market be studied before fixing deadlines and taking definitive steps. Shipbuilding is not an industry like the others!

This is why I am asking the Commission to accept the amendments which will leave us, between now and the end of the year 2000, a sufficient margin for manoeuvre. In this sector, as in many others, let us once and for all stop being masochists.

  Darras (PSE), in writing. – (FR) There is a proverb in France which says that you should not be more Catholic than the Pope. I think the European Commission should give this some thought.

Although it is true that the current state system of support to the European shipbuilding industry expired in 1997 and that we are still awaiting ratification of the OECD agreement on this point – the United States have yet to ratify it! –, it seems unacceptable that the European Commission communication proposes that the Union should unilaterally “anticipate’ the principles foreseen in the said agreement.

Why should we want to introduce a stricter system of subsidies, which our competitors still do not accept and whilst the shipbuilding industry remains an extremely fragile sector of the European economy? Why worry the employees in this sector when it is the last thing they need at the moment?

If we want to win citizens over to the European idea, we should perhaps listen to them and take account of the conditions of their daily lives. In any case, this is my opinion, as a woman of the Left, and I hope that it will be shared by most of my colleagues.

I therefore hope that the Commission will reconsider its approach from a slightly less “liberal’ point of view and more in accordance with the interests of the workers of the Union and its citizens as a whole.

  Novo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Mr President, given that the OECD agreement regarding the shipbuilding industry, signed in 1994, has not been, and no doubt never will be, ratified by major signatory countries – the most flagrant cases being the United States and South Korea –, and that these countries have even increased their public subsidies to their respective shipyards, the time has come for the Commission to provide clear support to the shipbuilding industry in all Member States where it still exists, so that it may survive and take its place under similar conditions against its competitors on the world market.

However, this is not the political perspective of the new Regulation, or of the Commission, and certainly not the tenor of the amendments to the report.

The European shipbuilding industry is certainly not protected by seeking, through this Regulation, to apply to all European shipbuilders, in a more or less short period of time, all the guidelines contained in the OECD agreement, regardless of the fact that the agreement is flouted on the world market.

The European shipbuilding industry will not be protected by imposing a time limit on public, national and regional aid, while simultaneously discriminating against small shipbuilders by offering more privileged treatment to large shipbuilders, and imposing conditions for such aid – environmental, closure, modernization, but always excluding increased capacity – which always fall far short of the present and future practices of third parties.

For this reason, we cannot support the report, although we do agree with some of Mr Sainjon"s positive amendments.

In expressing our position, we take the opportunity to remind the House of the negative impact on the Portuguese shipbuilding industry"s capacity attendant upon even the partial application of an agreement that was never ratified, and the detriment to other similar industries in other countries, including some EU countries.

Therefore, our position seeks also to draw the attention of the Portuguese government and of the shipyards involved to the possibility that, even in the current situation, they could create more favourable conditions for the financial and economic stability of the Portuguese shipbuilding industry"s capacity.

  Rovsing (PPE), in writing. – (DA) The events of recent years in the European shipbuilding industry have demonstrated the need for clear rules on state aids. However, an EU directive in this area would only be necessary in the absence of regulations adopted by the OECD. Therefore, such a need would be superfluous once OECD regulations came into effect. Constant reductions in maximum permissible levels of state aids to shipyards is vital in order to ensure free market conditions. The report by the committee seeks to clarify and tighten up the regulations of the directive, and thus, it is worthy of our full support.

‐ Schörling report (A4‐0105/98)

  Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, as far as the Schörling report is concerned, it refers to our vote of 2 March 1995, in which the Left of this House rejected a proposal of our party to include family policy in the aims of the World Social Summit. I regret this, and I also regret that the World Social Summit has not acknowledged this as a priority either, and that this has also affected the subsequent actions of the Commission. In my opinion, we must make up for what we unfortunately failed to do in the Schörling report, which talks of men, women and children in a spirit of extreme individualization. But I believe that an effective social policy without strengthening and supporting the family is impossible. I am therefore of the opinion that in this matter we must do better, in preparation for the special session of the United Nations in the year 2000, which is mentioned in the Schörling report. That may seem far off to some people, but it is not long now until the year 2000. We here in Parliament should put the emphasis on doing better in this deciding question, and on ensuring that the General Assembly of the United Nations concerns itself with this subject in the year 2000.

  Ojala (GUE/NGL). – (FI) Madam President, thank you for allowing me the chance to explain myself verbally. I actually pressed the red button in error when we were voting finally on Mrs Schörling"s report, and I am really very sorry about that, as the report is an excellent one. I support the report with wholehearted enthusiasm, and I apologize that so much of what was said here in the House yesterday evening was immaterial. Claims were made that Mrs Schörling"s report contained something that went counter to the spirit of the EU. That is not at all true. I am sorry for Mrs Schörling, and obviously I must apologize myself for mistakenly voting against a report I fully support.

  Kirsten Jensen, Blak, Sindal and Iversen (PSE), in writing. – (DA) The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have today voted in favour of a follow‐up to the Copenhagen Summit on Social Development. The Copenhagen Summit emphasized that in the 50 years since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, little progress has been made on poverty eradication. The gulf between rich and poor has been increasing steadily since 1960, and by no means everyone is guaranteed a satisfactory standard of living. A large section of the world"s population is cut off from the things we normally consider human rights – food, housing, education, health, work and social security.

The primary responsibility for meeting the obligations of the Summit lies with the Member States. However, the EU can and should also take responsibility, for example by applying the human rights clauses in external trading agreements, by placing emphasis on an active employment policy and, of course, by incorporating the social dimension into all Community policies.

  Sandbæk, Lis Jensen and Krarup (I‐EDN), in writing. – (DA) We abstained from the vote on Mrs Schörling's report primarily because Amendment No 2 was adopted. On the whole, the report is sound, but we cannot endorse a section urging the Commission to table a motion on ‚taxation and social security arrangements in Member States’. It should be the sovereign right of the Member States to prepare and adopt such policies. Besides, we must once again emphasize the difficulty Denmark has with regard to ‚right of association’, under which our professional system is – quite unjustly – criticized as being in breach of international conventions.

  Seillier (I‐EDN), in writing. – (FR) The Schörling report on the follow‐up to the World Summit on Social Development reminds us that economic development and social development go hand in hand.

The way in which the world market functions, brought on by an abdication of responsibility on the part of the ruling classes, has the effect of “the poor in the rich countries making the rich in the poor countries richer’, according to Jimmy Goldsmith"s lucid analysis in his book “The Trap’. Individualistic neo‐liberalism cannot bring about satisfactory social and economic development any more than could communist collectivism. The “welfare market’ is a deception, just as was, and still is, the “welfare state’ in some countries.

For the worthy objectives of the Copenhagen Summit to be attained we would need to look again at the principles and aims behind our economic concepts and remember that economics is a human science, for the benefit of humanity and its development. As etymology shows, economics means “household management’. It must therefore first and foremost satisfy the basic needs of the individual (food, shelter, health, work and so on) throughout his or her life.

The well‐being of people and of the grass‐roots communities we know as families is the real criteria of true social and economic progress, rather than GNP, GDP or participation in Brownian movements of international capital.

In the countries of Europe, as in the rest of the world, poverty affects, above all, single mothers. Social breakdown, and the resulting exclusion, are very often the consequences of family breakdown which isolates and weakens the individual. You cannot respond to the crisis in our society without formulating a policy in favour of the family, which is the main protagonist in social development, in favour of its stability, its capacity to train people for life through education regarding the common good, the ways of others and generosity.

True social development, for all humanity, must have as its burning obligation the promotion of, as Pope Paul VI put it so well in Populorum progressio , “the development of all man, and of all men’.

  Theonas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) In its communication, the Commission specifies five areas of action on which the EU's intervention should focus as a follow‐up to the World Summit on Social Development, held in Copenhagen in 1995. Development of the social dimension in an international institutional context, social clauses in the EU's bipartite agreements, the fight against poverty and social exclusion within the EU, the safeguarding of employment as a priority in economic and social policies, and the fight against racism, with protection for immigrants. As statements, those are all well and good. Practice, however, puts grandiose declarations completely to shame.

When the EU and the members of the Group of 7 talk about developing the social dimension in the context of a globalized economy, they mean the world‐wide imposition of their anti‐populist choices as defined at the meetings in Halifax, Lyons and Lille. The new order of things has reached a point where the measures to be adopted are laid down at conferences inaccessible to, and remote from, any democratic control, and regional bodies and the states then come along and implement them. It is characteristic that the Commission, having mentioned the policy of reducing public deficits and the measures in the White Paper – which it terms a ‚guide’ – as an example of an integrated approach to the relation between economic and social development, then asks for stronger cooperation between the ILO and the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, with the aim of ‚continuing along the lines agreed in Halifax and followed up in Lyons’.

The Commission rightly supports a social clause in its bipartite agreements with countries benefiting from financial aid or preferential trading conditions. The question is why did it not lead the way in adopting a clause insisting on respect for social and other human rights during its GATT Uruguay Round negotiations? Besides, why does it not adapt its behaviour to that principle, even at bipartite level? It is provocative for the Commission to speak about respecting the fundamental rights of working people and applying the ILO conventions when, with its own policies within the EU, it is essentially doing away with fundamental agreements such as those concerning freedom of association and collective bargaining.

The Commission speaks of combating poverty. The more than 50 million people in the EU who live below the poverty line and whose number is continually increasing, bear incontestable witness to the bankruptcy of the prescriptions being pursued. The widening gap between developed and developing countries also demonstrates the inappropriateness of the means adopted, supposedly, to foster the development of the Third World. Neither the celebrated partnership agreements, nor the loans from the World Bank and the IMF, which are accompanied by specific economic policy conditions and draconian commitments, can of course solve the problem. Nor can the inadequate capital provided within the scope of the celebrated development aid from the Community budget and the Member States which, in reality, is linked to other trade or economic commitments in order to gain penetration of capital from those countries into the economies of the beneficiary states and to loot their wealth.

The Commission speaks about safeguarding employment as a priority of economic and social policies, proposing the ‚active employment policy’ it is promoting as a model to be imitated. Apparently, instead of considering that its aim should be to extend Europe's post war model of social welfare to other countries, it is precisely trying to undermine that model.

The report contains some positive comments, but they are inadequate. In principle, it fully accepts the framework created by the resolutions of the G7, the current institutional framework of the international economic organizations, and the Commission"s attitude to the content of the social dimension and to employment policy. Poverty and unemployment are not combatted by legal means, but by policies to promote investment, create jobs, and encourage demand so as to open the way to new jobs and absorb the unemployed. Unemployment is not fought with social funds, which in any event are tending to decrease and in effect achieve nothing more than to provide some training for unemployed people who will be thrust right back into unemployment for lack of job offers. Unemployment cannot be solved by the measures in the guidelines on unemployment and by the basic lever of the new employability and adaptability conditions. We fear that talk of closer cooperation between the ILO, IMF, OECD and WTO just means shackling the International Labour Organization to the options chosen by the others and preparing a review of the fundamental agreements concluded at a time when worldwide rivalry between the powers favoured the position of the labour movement and the formulation of new agreements legitimizing today's choices. We agree with the proposal to establish a global tax on international monetary transactions, and call on the EU to adopt that position and ignore the reactions of the capital markets.

We consider that without a new international economic order, which respects the right of all peoples to self‐determination, development and social advancement, guaranteeing freedom of political choice for states and focusing on the elimination of hunger, poverty and unemployment and not on the liberalization of the markets for products and services and the maximization of profits, it is self‐deceptive to believe that the situation could change substantially. The emerging tendencies confirm as much. International capital is tending to do away with the fundamental rights of states and peoples, as is evident from the OECD's draft multilateral agreement on investment, which shows up the hypocrisy of all the talk about social rights since it will become possible to disregard any social measure or means of protecting the public interest. The same thing emerges from regional agreements of the NAFTA type or from the plan to create a transatlantic free trade zone. Faced with such choices, the only solution available to the people is to intensify their struggle to overthrow the present order of things, establish a new concept in international relations and change the rivalry that prevails today between the powers in the large industrialized countries.

‐ Rocard report (A4‐0085/98)

  Ahlqvist, Andersson, Hulthén, Lööw, Theorin, Waidelich and Wibe (PSE), in writing. – (SV) We think that the report is very good because the committee fully supports the Commission's guidelines regarding the integration of equal opportunities into all work, the eradication of poverty and environmental impact assessments. It is also excellent that emphasis is put on the importance of an equal partnership which should be founded on democratic values and human rights.

However, we do not agree with paragraphs 57 and 67 because we do not think that the current trading system can be maintained. In our opinion, an adaptation of the WTO's rules is the only sustainable solution in the long term. Nor do we think that long term protection of agriculture is a durable solution. The European Union should instead have greater consistency between its aid policy, agricultural policy and fisheries policy, as pointed out in paragraph 77. However, paragraph 77 should also have pointed out the direct link between a coordination of these policy areas and the objective of economic partnership.

  Caudron (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I would firstly like to congratulate Michel Rocard for his excellent work and his deep progressive convictions which have guided the political directions of his text. In contrast, I am not at all happy with the frivolity of the positions put forward by Conservatives and Liberals of all kinds.

Indeed, although we can be pleased that an agreement has been reached, the weaknesses in this agreement must also be highlighted.

Nevertheless, the framework proposed corresponds to an appreciable and interesting progression, moving in the direction of a “mature’ partnership with the ACP countries, both on their part and that of the European Union.

Indeed, how could you not support a proposal to reduce debt, a position supported for many years by some and at last finally understood by others?

Some countries, in particular African ones, can hope for tangible social and economic development, but in the past this has been reduced to nothing by the weight of an extremely high debt burden.

Another path leading to more effective cooperation is that of the transfer of technology. This approach, supported by a majority of NGOs and political leaders, seems to be made concrete in this text, which is all the better.

I will therefore support Michel Rocard"s text and, in spite of some previous reservations, I am sure that the chairman of the ACP Committee will be able to make known his views to the Commission and to the Commissioners in charge of this matter, and to get them respected.

  Donnay (UPE), in writing. – (FR) We are happy to be given a further opportunity of expressing our commitment to the partnership between the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the European Union. Indeed, Europe remains the ACP countries" number one partner. It must be remembered that the Union and its Member States are these countries" major donors, far in advance of other western donors. More than 60 % of public development aid mobilized each year in the world comes from Europe.

The Union for Europe Group also supports the directions suggested by the Commission insofar as they take for granted the appropriateness of the ACP‐EU partnership and consequently show a desire to perpetuate and revitalize this cooperation, which is unique in its kind. We are pleased that the Council, in spite of the initial reticence of some members, has come to the same conclusions.

Boosted by the privileged relationship that we have maintained since the beginnings of European construction and aware of the challenges of the next century and the interest we have in taking up these challenges together, it is from now on for us to initiate a true model of partnership. It will be the Fifth Lomé Convention"s task to sanction this.

Following the example of the Commission, the Union for Europe Group considers it essential to strengthen the political dimension of the next convention and to conclude, with our partners, a true political contract based on the promotion of democratic principles, respect for human rights and good governance. It is understood that these basic principles are intrinsically linked. Consequently, good economic performance, for example, can neither excuse nor compensate for an absence of multipartism or any other democratic shortcoming.

Like the Commission, we are convinced of the importance of promoting investment, of free trade and of the participation of the ACP countries in the global economy. Nevertheless, the trade dimension designed by the Commission raises great doubts in our minds, as it seems far too premature. The Union for Europe Group considers that the creation of a sufficiently long transition period enabling an harmonious integration of the ACP countries into world trade is necessary.

Similarly, we will guard against the temptation of “business above all else’ which seems to enable some donors to release themselves from all obligations of solidarity. The proof is in a recent OECD report. In this report the organization notes that, in spite of the commitment undertaken by its members, almost 20 years ago, to dedicate 0.7 % of their GDP to public development aid, average contributions reached their lowest level ever in 1996, falling to 0.12 % for the United States. Under such conditions one cannot declare the desire to fight poverty in the developing world to be a true priority.

Here then, in a few lines, are the broad outlines of how the Union for Europe Group would like to see the Lomé V Convention built and the pitfalls that we would want to avoid. Finally, we would like to assure our ACP friends of our confidence in the future of this unique relationship which unites us. This confidence stems from a profound conviction that it is not only in the interests of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries but also in Europe"s interest to make our partnership a fruitful and prosperous one.

This is indeed the spirit of the Rocard report. Our group will also give him all the support he requires.

  Souchet (I‐EDN), in writing. – (FR) The Group of Independents for a Europe of Nations supports Mr Rocard"s report because it clearly reaffirms a marked commitment to pursuing and renewing a preferential cooperation between the ACP countries and the countries of the European Union, within the framework of the joint Lomé process, initiated thirty years ago.

Far from having exhausted its effects, the Lomé dynamic seems, on the contrary, destined to lead to a lasting geopolitical partnership over the course of the coming period, commencing with the negotiations of the Lomé V Convention, and to true codevelopment, especially Euro‐African.

During these negotiations, we must make sure that the commitment to Lomé demonstrated by France"s European partners is not merely a formal one, hiding a desire for dilution or withdrawal, and that it clearly corresponds to a desire to give substantial content to the new cooperation relationship. We must at all costs avoid Lomé becoming an “empty shell’ and for this it is essential to extend and renew its measures.

In this respect, development of trade is not the be all and end all of development. It is only a part of it, albeit an extremely important part.

We are therefore pleased with the emphasis the Rocard report has placed on necessary support to the development of the family economy, particularly in rural regions, to the development of micro‐credit, to top class technology and to advertising which benefits local production. We are also committed to the development of decentralized cooperation. However, three major uncertainties remain.

The first concerns the total amount of appropriations that the European Union decides to dedicate to its cooperation with the ACP countries. This is clearly a political choice which falls within the jurisdiction of the sovereign Member States. But the instruments are not neutral. This is why we are against budgetization of the EDF, which risks diluting the responsibilities of each state, even more so within the framework of enlargement, and of favouring a reduction of appropriations within the framework of the Lomé Convention. This is why we tabled an amendment rejecting the budgetization of the EDF and its inclusion within the general budget.

The second uncertainty which needs to be clarified concerns trading relations between the European Union and the ACP countries. This question has been made more difficult by the fact that the European Union was not able to take into account adequately the needs of the developing world and the specifics of close cooperation between countries which were at unequal levels of development at the time of the negotiation of the WTO agreements. We therefore need to “find a way round’ the WTO rules and their interpretation. Together with the ACP countries, we need to pursue a determined and sophisticated strategy within the WTO in order to avoid the gains of thirty years of cooperation in the field of commerce, modest thought they may seem, from being swept away by the forced implementation of a sudden, brutal and indiscriminate opening up of the ACP countries to global free trade.

The third uncertainty to be eliminated concerns the future of relations with ACP countries belonging to the French franc zone once the franc has been replaced by the euro. In spite of the systematically reassuring comments of the French authorities, there is a great deal of uneasiness about this amongst African economists. The Community authorities have never publicly debated the fate of the CFA franc. Because of these questions, many investments are today frozen and a great deal of credit is now placed with banks outside of the franc zone. The countries concerned, which are still suffering from the shock of the 1994 devaluation, are unclear about the different interpretations which seem to be coming to light on this subject between France and Germany, regarding Article 109 of the Maastricht Treaty. For Germany, and the countries of the mark zone, the link which will join the euro to the franc zone is covered by this article and must therefore be Europeanized, whilst the French authorities consider that relations between the central African banks and France falls within the jurisdiction of the French Treasury and not the Bank of France, hence it will not fall within the competence of the future ECB. But will the French government not be thus led to giving guarantees regarding a process they are no longer in control of? These ambiguities must be urgently removed, as the franc zone is a powerful factor of stability in Africa. This is the reason why we had tabled an amendment, adopted by a very large majority and with the support of the rapporteur, requesting the European Commission to produce an objective study measuring the social and economic consequences of the introduction of the single European currency on the ACP countries, especially hose who are members of the franc zone.

  Vanhecke (NI), in writing. – (NL) The cooperation between fifteen European countries and the seventy ACP countries opens a significant financial window.

During the period 1995‐2000 we are talking about a sum ECU 13 billion, amounting to roughly 520 billion Belgian francs, which should help the African ACP countries, in particular, out of their state of underdevelopment.

We should, in all honesty, say that the effect of this money will remain unsatisfactory for three reasons: namely that most of the ACP countries have organized their economy according to a socialist model; that those in power have filled, and are continuing to fill, their own pockets; and that the European countries dare not complain about this situation for fear of being called neocolonialists.

The Rocard report devotes no attention to this situation, and argues rather blindly for the famous standard of 0.7 % of GNP to be made available for development cooperation. I cannot therefore approve of the report.

However, I am pleased to see for the first a time – in paragraphs 94 and 95 – a disguised return policy for immigrants, guest workers and the guest unemployed from the ACP countries to their countries of origin. Such a policy advocating guided and supported return, which is in everyone"s interest, has been suggested by my party for two decades. Hitherto, this has only led to us being quite unjustifiably called racists.

It is a good thing that from now on we will be able to refer to the blameless Rocard report as a source.

(The sitting was suspended at 1.22 p.m. and resumed at 3.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR HAARDER
Vice‐President