Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 16 September 1998 - Strasbourg

5. VOTES

  President . – I should like to begin by informing the House that I have received a formal letter of opposition to the simplified procedure applicable to the sale of genetically modified maize in Austria, Doc. C4‐0373/98. This motion was tabled in accordance with Rule 99 of the Rules of Procedure by Mrs Flemming and others. The proposal is therefore referred back to committee pursuant to Rule 99(2).

I should also like to inform the House that I have received a formal letter of opposition to the simplified procedure applicable to the sale of genetically modified maize in Luxembourg, Doc. C4‐0374/98. This motion was tabled in accordance with Rule 99 of the Rules of Procedure by Mrs Roth‐Behrendt and others. The proposal is therefore referred back to committee pursuant to Rule 99(2).

  Fayot (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I signed the request calling for these proposals to be referred back to the Committee on the Environment, but I would like to have some assurance from the committee that it will examine them properly. On 24 June, the coordinators of the Committee on the Environment did in fact discuss the Commission"s decision on the sale of genetically modified maize, but the proposal has not been examined in committee. As a result, I would like to make sure that it is properly examined this time round.

  President . – Let me be clear. We have no choice but to refer the matter to them under the Rules. How they handle it will be a matter for the Environment Committee.

  Breyer (V). – (DE) Mr President, we also naturally support the referral motion. But I cannot help pointing out that the Green Group in the European Parliament tabled the selfsame motion before the summer recess, and those very Members who have now tabled the motion refused to discuss it at that time in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. However, my concern is this...

(The President cut the speaker off)

  President . – Colleagues, we are not having a debate on this matter. The Rules are very clear. It has to go back to committee. There is no room for explanations or justifications.

***

Report (A4‐0294/98) by Mrs Schaffner, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs, on the 1997 annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the state of the drugs problem in the European Union

Report (A4‐0305/98) by Mr Schulz, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs, on the 1996 annual report of the Europol Drugs Unit

(Pursuant to Rule 52 three reports were deemed adopted)

***

Report (A4‐0180/98) by Mr Tomlinson, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1734/94 of 11 July 1994 on financial and technical cooperation with the Occupied Territories [COM(97)0552 – C4‐0048/98‐97/0316(SYN)]

Report (A4‐0300/98) by Mr Tomlinson, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on
I. Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1734/94 of 11 July 1994 on financial and technical cooperation with the Occupied Territories [COM(97)0552 – C4‐0048/98‐97/0316(SYN)]
II. Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 1734/94 of 11 July 1994 on financial and technical cooperation with the Occupied Territories [COM(98)0392 – C4‐0432/98‐98/0220(SYN)]

  Tomlinson, The Lord (PSE), rapporteur. – (EN) Mr President, this is a very complicated report and it would be to the benefit of the House if I briefly explained that the European Parliament is to vote now on two Commission proposals to modify the same regulation on financial and technical cooperation with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The first proposal was presented at the beginning of the year and the second in July. The Commission, however, insists on maintaining the two proposals separately. They are therefore being treated together. They constitute the basis of the compromise between Parliament and the Commission, being sought after Parliament's vote on 18 June to send the first report back to the Commission under Rule 60(2). On that occasion, Parliament approved 12 amendments to the first proposal. These 12 amendments were all rejected by the Commission. Some of the amendments on the first proposal have now been taken up in the second Commission proposal. Following negotiation with the Commission for a global compromise on the two proposals, I, as rapporteur, managed to persuade the Commission to accept almost all the amendments, except those concerning comitology. Here Parliament is examining the new Commission proposal on comitology and requires that what is decided in that context be applied here.

Therefore, before proceeding to the vote, the Commission should here in plenary first of all confirm that the Amendments Nos 1, 2, 7 and 8 to A4‐180/98 voted by the Group of the European People's Party last June to the first Commission proposal have been incorporated already in their second proposal. If the Commission can so do, they can be considered as withdrawn.

Secondly, it should commit itself to modify rapidly its second proposal to take in Amendments Nos 5 and 12, already voted last June, as well as the compromise Amendment No 1 to the first proposal, which is in the batch of 6 new amendments tabled for voting today, and also Amendment No 6 to the second proposal. If the Commission can both confirm the first and commit itself to the second, I would recommend to the European Parliament that of the new amendments in Document A4‐300/98 it should vote in favour of compromise Amendment No 1 and Amendments Nos 4, 5 and 6, and Amendments Nos 2 and 3 can then be withdrawn in favour of Amendment No 6. The success of this agreement will depend on the rapid presentation by the Commission of a modified text of its second proposal respecting the political position of this Parliament.

  President . – Thank you, I am glad you said that.

  Marín, Vice‐President of the Commission. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must first express my gratitude to the Committee on Budgets, and especially to the rapporteur, Lord Tomlinson, for their painstaking work. On 25 June, the Commission presented a second proposal for the amendment of the Financial Regulation to Parliament and to the Council. In line with the promise I made at the plenary sitting of 17 June, this included various modifications suggested by Parliament to our initial proposal, namely Amendments Nos 1, 2, 7 and 8 to the first proposal. I can therefore confirm that the Commission accepts them.

Thanks to the Parliament"s determination to reach a pragmatic solution, you presented a single report which did indeed deal with the two proposals in two separate parts, and this has enabled us to resolve a large number of queries raised between the two institutions. Essentially, these concerned comitology, which as you are aware, is an area where the Commission would like to see change.

However, some issues requiring further consideration remained outstanding, and I can present our position on those today. Firstly, the matter of the duration of the Financial Regulation. The Commission had proposed an eight‐year programme, from 1999 to 2006; but we can now agree to the five‐year period, from 1999 to 2003, in the second proposal. Secondly, the Commission also agrees to accept the other three modifications to its second proposal suggested by the House. I am referring to Amendments Nos 5 and 12, to compromise Amendment No 1 suggested by Parliament for the first proposal, and to Amendment No 6 to the second proposal. I can confirm this.

As a result of this compromise, from 1 January 1999 the Commission will have at its disposal, thanks to the European Parliament"s help, a much more flexible and pragmatic method of maintaining the European Union"s support for the Palestinian people and the peace process.

I have to point out, however, Lord Tomlinson, that unfortunately the success or failure of this ambitious programme for the peace process will depend on how that peace process develops, and we should be very much aware that at present, the situation is critical.

The Commission will therefore propose these instruments immediately, but it has to be quite clear that the implementation of these instruments on Palestinian territory will depend essentially on the peace process. If the peace process moves forward, we shall be able to undertake a major programme of economic cooperation; if it remains stalled, we shall be faced with the kind of difficulties which I do not need to spell out to you.

(In successive votes Parliament adopted both legislative resolutions)

***

Procedure without report:

‐ Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3508/92, establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes as regards the deadlines for lodging applications for compensatory payments under the aid scheme for rice producers [COM(98)0228 – C4‐0276/98‐98/0136(CNS)]
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)

‐ Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1221/97 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey [COM(98)0313 – C4‐0429/98‐98/0171(CNS)]
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)

‐ Proposal for a Council Decision regarding a Community procedure for information and consultation on crude‐oil supply costs and the consumer prices of petroleum products [COM(98)0363 – C4‐0446/98‐98/0205(CNS)]
Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy

(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)

‐ Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products (consolidated version) COM(97)0723 – C4‐0139/98‐98/0008(CNS)]
Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights

(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)

‐ Proposal for a Council Regulation on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (codified version) [COM(98)0088 – C4‐0210/98‐98/0062(CNS)]
Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights

(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)

‐ Proposal for a Council Regulation (ECSC, EC Euratom) amending Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, and the other Regulations applicable to them with regard to the establishment of remuneration, pensions and other financial entitlement in Euros [COM(98)0324 – C4‐0426/98‐98/0190(CNS)]
Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights

(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)

‐ Proposal for a Council Regulation amending regulation (EEC, EURATOM, ECSC) No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities [COM(98)0421 – C4‐0478/98‐98/0235(CNS)]
Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights

(Parliament approved the Commission proposal)

***

Report (A4‐0301/98) by Mrs Leperre‐Verrier, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, on the proposals for Council Decisions concerning the Community position within the Association Council on the participation of Bulgaria, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romannia and the Slovak Republic in the Community programmes in the field of culture [COM(98)0239 – C4‐0319/98 to C4‐0326/98‐98/0145(CNS) to 98/0152(CNS)]

(In successive votes Parliament adopted the eight legislative resolutions)

***

Report (A4‐0306/98) by Mrs Leperre‐Verrier, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Community position within the Association Council on the participation of Latvia in a Community programme in the field of culture [COM(98)0358 – C4‐0403/98‐98/0203(CNS)]

***

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

Report (A4‐0108/98) by Mrs Schaffner, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs, on the report of the high‐level group on free movement of persons chaired by Mrs Simone Veil (C4‐0181/97)

Amendment No 4:

  Pirker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I am not entirely clear about the substance of the matter on which we are voting. May I ask someone from the Party of European Socialists to explain it? Amendment No 4 calls on the Commission to submit proposals extending the right of family reunification to children and relatives in ascending line who are not entitled to maintenance.

Is that intended for citizens of the Union, or is it supposed to apply to nationals of third countries? That would trigger a wave of immigration, which is why I am asking for an explanation as to what is meant here. Does it only apply to citizens of the Union, or are third country nationals included? The answer will naturally have a decisive influence on the vote.

  Zimmermann (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the wording is clear as it stands. It refers to those who live in the Union and to the reunification of families there. That actually emerges clearly from the text. It applies to all those who are already legally resident in the Union.

Amendment No 8:

  Lindeperg (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to raise a procedural motion and ask the House to authorise a separate vote on one word. I realise that this request is being made rather late in the day and I do apologise for this. The word at issue here is ‘political" in the last sentence which, and I quote, ’urges that such nationals..." – the nationals being discussed here are legally residing in the Union – ’that such nationals be treated in the same way as EU citizens with regard to their political, social and economic rights".

On behalf of the French members of this group, I would like to call for a separate vote on the word ‘political" since, whilst we are in favour of their right to vote at local elections, we are not in favour of the right to vote in national elections. In this case, the idea of equal political rights encompasses both local and national elections. So in short, if a separate vote is authorised and the word ‘political" is deleted, then we will vote in favour of this amendment. If this word is not deleted, then we will vote to reject the amendment.

  President . – I would like to be helpful but we have strict deadlines for informing the services of intention to request split votes. I can tell by the mood of the House that if we take this as a split vote we will have a long debate on it.

(Parliament rejected the resolution)

***

Recommendation for second reading (A4‐0278/98) on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts [C4‐0306/98‐96/0117(COD)] (Rapporteur: Mr Lannoye)

(The President declared the common position approved as amended)

***

Recommendation for second reading (A4‐0286/98) on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliamant and Council Directive on the supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group [C4‐0308/98‐95/0245(COD)] Rapporteur: Mr Mosiek‐Urbahn)

  Falconer (PSE). – (EN) Mr President, as you know I take an interest in roll call votes. Could you tell me whether we have just had five roll call votes or one roll call vote?

(Laughter)

  President . – How many times did you press the button? I will leave you to work it out.

(The President declared the common position approved as amended)

***

Report (A4‐0279/98) by Mr Valverde López, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a Council Directive on the registration and use within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993) [COM(98)0098 – C4‐0212/98‐98/0070(SYN)]

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

  Killilea (UPE). – (EN) Mr President, on a point of order. On the subject of roll call votes, on a personal basis and on behalf of a few other Members of this House, I wish to make the following statement to you and have the matter checked.

For almost all of the first half of this year – I do not have the dates on me now – I was accredited with not voting, despite the fact that I knew that I was here and voted. I raised myself afterwards the question of the soundness of my voting card. In fact, Mr President, you yourself on one occasion asked for the machine to be changed. But I still continued to question my voting card.

Today I arrived without the new card which I received in June and I went to the offices at the back of this building to obtain a spare card. I was given back my old card. I then went to the technicians' office to have it tested, to find out that my old card, which I was dependent on in this House for the four or five months of this year, was not functioning correctly. I knew it all through that period of time myself. I paid the price financially but that is not really what is at issue. I was accredited with not being present in this House to record my vote when, in actual fact, I was here but my card was faulty. I want to raise that matter with you now for the benefit of the other Members of this House who felt exactly the same way.

  President . – Thank you very much.

***

Report (A4‐0296/98) by Mr Christodoulou, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for an interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, Council and Commission on legal bases and implementation of the budget

Before the vote:

  Fabre‐Aubrespy (I‐EDN). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to ask that this report be referred back to the committee responsible. At the opening of this part‐session, the President of the Parliament made his wish to respect the Treaty clear, as well as his hope that texts which contravene the Treaty would not be submitted to the House. As you will recall, this discussion was in relation to the Bösch report.

It would appear that we must show the same legal vigilance today with the Christodoulou report. Articles 4 and 209 of the Treaty state that, for any expenditure, there must be a dual legal basis, both financial and legislative. The Court of Justice made this very clear in paragraph 26 of its judgment of 26 May and only excluded non‐significant Community actions that do not require this basis.

There are two main criticisms of the draft interinstitutional agreement we have received. The first criticism is that it provides for appropriations entered in the 1998 budget to be implemented without a legal basis, whereas the Court only allowed this for appropriations which had already been committed. The second criticism is that it expands the concept of pilot schemes, preparatory actions and specific measures, whilst putting a ceiling on the overall amount.

This concept of action limited in time was condemned by the Court, which specifically stated that there is nothing to stop significant Community action incurring limited expenses, or taking effect for only a limited period of time. Therefore, nonsignificant actions were excluded by the Court, and consequently this is a highly irregular legal situation. To check this, I suggest that this text be referred back to the committee responsible, as happened with the Bösch report.

  Samland (PSE), chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Mr President, the judgment to which the last speaker referred, and which was delivered by the Court at the request of the United Kingdom, relates to the legal bases of European Union expenditure. In its statement of grounds, the Court makes it clear that insignificant amounts of expenditure do not require a legal basis. The statement of grounds explicitly indicates that insignificance is not determined by the amount and duration of the expenditure, but depends on a decision that must be taken by both branches of the budgetary authority. This is precisely the principle we followed when the Interinstitutional Agreement that is now being put to the vote was concluded by the 15 Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament. This agreement is therefore the means by which the Council and Parliament have performed the task of interpreting and implementing this principle as the Court enjoined them to do at that point in its judgment. Accordingly, there are no grounds for not dealing with Mr Christodoulou's report. I move that the vote be taken now.

  Christodoulou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, I quite agree with what Mr Samland has said.

(Parliament decided not to refer the report back to committee)

Amendments Nos 1 to 4:

  Christodoulou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, these four amendments embody very sound principles. However, I am compelled to ask for a vote against them, because they do not belong in the text we are referring to. We have agreed about a plain text, and through the principles, I say again, are good ones, they are superfluous. The same applies to Amendment No 5 by Mrs Ewing. After the answer given by Commissioner Liikanen about the issue of less widely spoken languages, that amendment is superfluous. I am therefore opposed to all the amendments.

  Müller (V). – (DE) Mr President, I thank the rapporteur, the content of whose report is consistent with the position of our group. The amendments address the substantive points on which we sought clarification in the framework of the Interinstitutional Agreement. Since Mr Liikanen signalled clearly in yesterday's debate that every effort will be made to create these legal bases together with Parliament in future, as well as to guarantee maximum implementation of the budget in 1998, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment on behalf of my group.

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

***

Joint motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ on transatlantic relations (Echelon)

  Dell"Alba (ARE). – (FR) Mr President, we appear to have a problem here as the text is entitled ‘Transatlantic relations/Echelon system". Seeing as a few of our colleagues – and not just one or two of them either – have gone to great lengths to ensure that the word ‘Echelon" does not appear anywhere in the text, I suggest that we delete the word ‘Echelon" from the title itself, if the text remains unchanged. If this happens, then our colleagues will have been 100 % successful in their task.

  Pompidou (UPE). – (FR) Mr President, the motions for resolutions discuss problems linked to economic information and these are directly related to the Echelon system. In view of this, we must keep the term ‘Echelon" in the title of the motion.

  Roth (V). – (DE) Mr President, I should like to ask you not to take a block vote but to take separate votes, certainly on Amendments Nos 4, 12 and 13. Moreover, there was an unfortunate mistake in the vote on the Schaffner report. The motion requested a vote by roll call at the end of the debate, and I should like you to tell us why you did not allow a roll‐call vote.

  President . – The services have just told me that it was their fault. It was an administrative problem. We apologise for that.

(Parliament adopted the joint resolution)

***

  Roth (V). – (DE) Mr President, may I come back to your statement in reply to my previous question. You said it was an oversight by the services in not passing on the motion for a roll‐call vote on Mrs Schaffner's report. That is just one of those things that can happen to anyone. But you, as the President of the sitting, are able to have the vote taken again as a roll‐call vote. That is what I am now asking you to do. The fact that a mistake was made is no reason for not repeating the vote. I therefore request a roll‐call vote on the Schaffner report.

  President . – It is on the suface a perfectly reasonable request. However, the problem is that people leave and enter the Chamber and we will not have the same presence now as had when we took the vote. It is an error on my part and I can only apologise for it. I do not think we are in a position to repeat the vote.

***

Report (A4‐0235/98) by Mr Campoy Zueco, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the Commission Communication to the European Parliament and to the Council concerning the application of Directives 75/439/EEC, 75/442/EEC, 78/319/EEC and 86/278/EEC on waste management [COM(97)0023 – C4‐0368/97]

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

  Graefe zu Baringdorf (V). – (DE) Mr President, I refer again to Mrs Schaffner's report. You have said that it is not possible to vote again now because the composition of the House may have changed. But it is possible for you to defer this vote until voting time tomorrow, and that the groups themselves, knowing that the vote is taking place, can ensure that they are duly represented. Then we can vote by roll call. It does make a difference whether we vote by roll call or in secret; it even sways Members' voting decisions. That, in fact, is why this request is being made.

  President . – I have admitted and apologised for an error. But it is quite clear that once a vote is declared in this House you cannot at a subsequent date go back on that vote. The result of the vote has been announced. That is the end of the matter.

***

Motion for a resolution (B4‐0801/98) by Mr De Giovanni, on behalf of the Committee on Institutional Affairs, on the modification of the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission – ’comitology" (Council Decision of 13 July 1987)

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

* **
Report (A4‐0167/98) by Mr Mohamed Alí, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, on Islam and Averroës European Day

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

***

  Green (PSE). – (EN) Mr President, I just wish to respond to the comments made by Mr Killilea. It is a shame he is not here to hear them. As a Quaestor of this House I am surprised that he had to raise something like that on the floor of the House. He, more than anyone else, should know how best to deal with that. One has to wonder at his motives for raising it on the floor.

Explanations of vote

‐ Schulz report (A4‐0305/98)

  Kirsten Jensen, Blak, Sindal and Iversen (PSE), in writing. – (DA) The Danish Social Democrats have today voted for the annual report of the Europol Drugs Unit. In view of the increase in international organised crime in fields such as drugs, it is very important that the Europol Drugs Unit should operate effectively. The fight against organised crime will be most effective if Europe's police forces work together.

Europol is there to facilitate police inquiries in the individual Member States by providing a framework for the rapid exchange of information between police authorities. Secondly, Europol can carry out overarching analyses of trends in crime which benefit the national police forces.

We cannot endorse any call for actual investigative powers to be assigned to Europol. Europol must not acquire the character of a European police authority; the investigation of criminal matters must be carried out, as hitherto, by the police in the Member States. Europol must instead prioritise the very important tasks it already has, for example exchange of information and expertise, support for investigations, analysis and training.

‐ COM in rice (C4‐0276/98)

  Fabre‐Aubrespy (I‐EDN), in writing. – (FR) As we give our opinion on the Council regulation on establishing an integrated management system and control system for certain regimes of Community aid and in particular for rice growers, I would like to ask my colleagues, the Commission and the Council to bear in mind the tragic situation of French rice producers who are mainly based in the Camargue region and in French Guiana.

Indeed, we have had lengthy debates here in the House highlighting the Commission"s failings in its management of the cereals market. Last year at the beginning of our campaign, when world prices were at their highest, the Commission did not issue any export certificates and, as a result, the EU lost the large Arab markets.

I must remind the House that a similar situation developed in the rice markets, if only because European production is on too small a scale to cater for our internal market. The Commission agreed to import rice from third countries – albeit under pressure from the WTO – whilst ‘forgetting" to manage our internal market.

Today, the producers" and cooperatives" silos are full and there is no longer any storage capacity specifically set aside for rice, such as ventilated silos. Soon we will have to harvest our 1998 production, and what is the Commission suggesting we do to address this problem? Nothing.

Therefore, I am formally asking the Commission to take urgent action to allow our rice producers to continue with the 1998 harvest and to allow our cooperatives to stockpile our production.

Having progressively reduced aid to rice producers and having caused the bottlenecks in our silos, it would appear that the Commission does not want us to maintain any rice production in Europe? Or has it simply decided that the European Union should be dependent on rice produced in third countries for its entire rice supply?

‐ Schaffner report (A4‐0108/98)

  Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, we have rejected the Schaffner report, although it deals with a very important subject, and all because of a number of unacceptable amendments, not least those tabled by Mrs Zimmermann, which explains why her Social Democratic Party is freefalling towards the 20 % mark in Bavaria. Amendment No 4, for example, sought uncontrolled immigration of grandparents, unmarried and homosexual live‐in partners and the like. I believe that if Parliament continues to treat such important matters so flippantly under pressure from the Socialists and Greens, it will trigger protests among broad sections of the population. Given these important responsibilities that are now being entrusted to us, we have a duty to return to constructive cooperation and to stop playing this sort of demagogic game behind the backs of our citizens and taxpayers.

It is indeed striking that a similar paper was referred back by the Socialists themselves when Mr Schröder was here in Strasbourg, because they were embarrassed by it. But no sooner has Mr Schröder left than they are at it again.

(Heckling from Mr Schulz)

  Berthu (I‐EDN), in writing. – (FR) The Schaffner report on the free movement of persons has just been rejected in this House by a coalition formed out of contradictory reasons. Nonetheless, we must point out that, before the report was rejected, Amendment No 8 had been adopted by a clear majority – 276 votes to 250 – and this should not be forgotten. This amendment stated that ‘the free movement of persons pursuant to Article 7a of the Treaty on European Union (Article 14 of the consolidated version) must also apply to third country nationals residing legally in the European Union" and then went on to ask ‘that these members be treated in the same way as EU citizens with regard to their political, social and economic rights".

The first part of the quote comes from the draft Amsterdam text, which sets a deadline of five years for the abolition of all border controls within the EU for citizens of Member States and for third country nationals. The Europe of Nations Group is opposed to this measure as it would lead to us losing control of our territory – a fundamental basis for our sovereignty. How can territorial integrity be preserved if we no longer have the right to control our own borders? How can we defend a territory, which the French constitution states must be defended and even, in Article 16, goes as far as allowing exceptional powers to be invoked for the defence of this territory?

Yet what follows Amendment No 8 goes even further than this. It calls for equality amongst nationals and citizens of third countries as regards their economic, social and political rights. These political rights, for example, include the right to vote in all elections, ranging from council to presidential elections. This text did not come about by accident. It is indeed an expression of this House"s lasting philosophy; namely the desire to erase any difference between citizens and foreigners in all areas. In our opinion, such a philosophy will not lead to the construction of Europe, but rather to its destruction.

French citizens must be on their guard: the Amsterdam Treaty allows for decisions on the international movement of persons to be taken by qualified majority voting in the Council, in codecision with Parliament. If we grant such powers to Parliament, then they will be used as has been made clear today, and this will not change in the future. This House will always remain a Parliament too far removed from its citizens and manipulated by pressure groups who only want to go over the heads of the different countries in order to destroy Europe. I would ask French citizens to remember this when ratifying the Amsterdam Treaty.

  Lis Jensen and Krarup (I‐EDN), in writing. – (DA) We cannot support the Schaffner report under any circumstances. The report is in our opinion completely out of step with reality and, at its worst, is an expression of EU federalism. The Schaffner report shows a contempt for national democracies that is inadmissible – for example in paragraph 1, where it proposes that the Council implement Article 7a, which covers the removal of internal frontiers and the strengthening of controls at the Union's external frontiers, without any noticeable concern for national law. At the same time we can only call on the Danish Government to stand firm in the Council and continue to block the Commission's proposal to extend Regulation 1408/71.

We do not merely oppose the élitist view of how political decisions can be implemented, we will also at all times fight to uphold the exclusive right of national parliaments to determine national border policy, visa policy, social policy, etc. At the same time, having regard to the electoral process by which we have been elected, we will also affirm the obligation of democratic states to observe the international conventions that have been adopted under the auspices, for example, of the Council of Europe and the United Nations and will actively defend their principles. In that context we energetically reject the proposal of the Austrian Presidency for a common EU policy on immigrants and refugees, which is in clear conflict with, among other things, the UN Convention on Refugees and common humanity. Unfortunately, the Austrian initiative is not the only EU‐related ploy in the refugee field which conveys a 'Fortress Europe' mentality. The Danish Prime Minister even stated, in the context of the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty, that a vote for the Amsterdam Treaty would mean fewer refugees in Denmark.

We are in no doubt that the Schaffner report is to be seen as yet another brick in the construction not just of the United States of Europe but also of a 'Fortress Europe'. We are therefore voting against the Schaffner report.

  Thors (ELDR), in writing. – (SV) Along with other members of the Liberal Group, I note with dismay that the European Parliament was unable to deliver an opinion on the reports from the High Level Group on Free Movement, chaired by a respected European and former Member of this House, Mrs Simone Weil.

The voting behaviour of the conservative side demonstrated a lack of any desire to create a level playing field for third country citizens legally resident within the Union. Can we really speak of free movement if the rules apply to EU citizens only? The operation of such a system beggars belief.

Those British Labour Members who clearly abstained also bear responsibility for the fact that Parliament cannot fulfil one of its primary missions, namely to create a citizens" Europe. The report charts the day‐to‐day difficulties dogging the lives of many people in Europe. One of our main concerns should be to remedy this state of affairs.

‐ Lannoye recommendation (A4‐0278/98)

  Bonde and Sandbæk (I‐EDN), in writing. – (DA) We are voting for the Lannoye report and particularly welcome the fact that Amendment No 4 has been withdrawn, since we do not want to see simplifications of existing standards enacted by committees. We have indeed noted with satisfaction that the Commission has not included in its presentation – although this is what it originally wanted – formulations which would provide possibilities for future simplifications of existing standards to be carried out through the committee procedure, of which clearly we strongly disapprove because of the closed and undemocratic nature of committees.

‐ Mosiek‐Urbahn recommendation (A4‐0279/98)

  Caudron (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I would like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Mosiek‐Urbahn, on her work and on all the effort she has put into reaching an agreement on this important directive on supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings.

Mrs Mosiek‐Urbahn has succeeded almost completely in getting different points of view to agree. The Council has in fact adopted the amendments voted through at first reading. The common position, adopted by 14 votes to one, seems to us to be a good compromise.

Mrs Mosiek‐Urbahn does, however, suggest a number of amendments at second reading. We regret to say that we do not agree with these amendments. We believe that the balance struck by the common position is the right one and we are concerned that the proposed amendments will alter the directive and thereby jeopardize the protection offered to policyholders and the insurance groups sector – something which is very important in our eyes.

The French Socialists will therefore accept the common position without amendments, as will the majority of the Socialist Group. I would personally like to ask the European Commission to defer its critical stance on the French mutual insurance associations and to reopen talks on this question with the French Government.

  Rovsing (PPE), in writing. – (DA) It is essential that both citizens and firms in the internal market can have full confidence in the insurance industry. It is thus a very positive development that the European Union is now effectively seeking to prevent insurance companies from resorting to the very serious practice of circumventing the solvency requirements of the EU's insurance directives, which consists in counting the same capital twice in order to cover risks for which insurance has been issued by different companies.

After the first reading, the Council showed a very cooperative attitude in that it accepted the great majority of Parliament's amendments in its common position. I also feel justified in expressing satisfaction at this spirit of cooperation.

‐ Valverde López report (A4‐0279/98)

  Bonde and Sandbæk (I‐EDN), in writing. – (DA) We are voting for the report because it is necessary to prevent Chapter 2 aircraft, which generate more pollution and noise, from the USA ending up in EU countries when they are no longer permitted in the USA. Even 'hushkitted' Chapter 2 aircraft cause more pollution and noise than 'proper' Chapter 3 aircraft. In order to reduce noise pollution, we also support the ban on recertified aircraft taking off and landing at night. There is a general need for a further tightening‐up of noise reduction measures in the air transport sector in Europe and the world as a whole.

However, we strongly oppose Amendment No 1. This area must continue to be regulated by a directive rather than a regulation. Regulations enable further powers to be taken away from the national parliaments, and we cannot support such a transfer of legislative power from democratically elected bodies to the EU Commission.

  Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE), in writing. – (ES) It is regrettable that despite Parliament"s almost unanimous approval of the amendments to the Green Paper on combating noise proposed by myself as rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, we should now be presented with these modifications which are far from adequate for achieving noise reduction in the air transport sector.

It is unbelievable that aircraft fitted with hushkits should still be allowed within the European
Union, and that the exemptions granted in Article 4(1) should be abused.

Amendment No 5 to the Commission"s text does seem reasonable. It guarantees citizens" sleep, banning night flights. I come from the Balearic Islands and have personal experience of the torture caused by Minorca airport, where there is no regulation of noise pollution during the busy tourist season.

It appears that the Parliament"s unanimous position against noise on the occasion of the debate on the Green Paper went unnoticed. The Environment Commissioner did not even deign to attend, despite sending out splendid ‘soundproofed" messages during the recent Copenhagen conference on noise.

‐ Christodoulou report (A4‐0396/98)

  Berthu (I‐EDN). – (FR) Mr President, last July the Europe of Nations Group spoke out against the actions of the Commission which, having been condemned by the Court of Justice for implementing expenditure without the appropriate legal basis, then came to Parliament and asked for its support. The Commission was backed up by a host of letters from associations which were benefiting from these illegal appropriations. All these associations did of course claim that they were on the verge of collapse and that the most impoverished of them would suffer terribly if the European Union did not continue to pay subsidies to them.

We refuse to take part in this game. We believe that aid for socially oriented projects will be more carefully and efficiently distributed if it remains under the control of governments and local authorities.

Today there is absolutely no reason to deviate from this principle, other than the Commission"s wish to intervene in all areas and to build up a grateful client base. Also, as the current Treaty requires a legal basis for expenditure, we find the Commission's proposed solution – an agreement between the institutions which interprets the Treaty rather liberally – completely unacceptable, since it would allow the Commission to continue behaving as it has been doing. The Treaty was adopted by the people of Europe, and the Brussels institutions do not have the power to change its meaning without consulting the people once again.

Our position of principle was made clear in July and was strengthened today when we read the text of the draft agreement. The text endorses all the Commission"s requests to implement expenditure on its own initiative for hypothetical pilot schemes or preparatory actions or even for specific or indefinite measures resulting from its institutional prerogatives, and this last category does not even have an established maximum limit.

We consider this draft agreement to be unacceptable and we call on the Council to reject it.

  Fabre‐Aubrespy (I‐EDN). – (FR) Mr President, I voted against this report both for legal reasons and on a matter of principle.

I explained the legal reason for voting against this report during the final vote. I would like to reiterate the fact that the Treaty calls for a dual legal basis before implementing any Community expenditure. There must be a financial basis, so it must be entered in the Community budget, and there must be a legal basis, so a secondary act must have been adopted.

In its judgment of 12 May, the Court of Justice highlighted these requirements. Such bases were only not required for actions described as non‐significant. The Court held that actions limited in time or with a restricted budget could be other than nonsignificant. The draft interinstitutional agreement does not comply with the Court"s decision. It allows expenditure to be implemented for pilot projects of an experimental nature, for preparatory actions and for specific measures. As my colleague Mr Berthu pointed out, specific measures with a considerable budget can easily be drawn up in this way without a legal basis.

And then there is the matter of principle, which is very simple. We cannot continue to have a European Union that is as devoted to interinstitutional agreements as this one currently is. We demand that Treaties be drawn up and that they be ratified by Parliament, yet we deny the people the right to comment on the Treaties by using these interinstitutional agreements which do not go to the people or to national parliaments for comment. Through such agreements, we add things, we amend things, we change the Treaties.

(Applause)

‐ Echelon system

  Crampton (PSE), in writing. – (EN) The excellent STOA working document – An appraisal of Technologies of Political Control – does not appear to have received the attention it deserves: certainly not from the Commission, which denies knowledge of any agreements when it is known that a memorandum of understanding was signed by the EU states in 1995 but remains classified. Also, it seems to me that only the Green Group exhibits any real understanding of the problem.

The main gatherer of information in the EU for the United States is the spy base at Menwick Hill in North Yorkshire, England. This is a spy base set up by agreement between the British Government and the USA in 1948 among other purposes to monitor communications between the West and East and within the East in the cold war.

While many US bases in Europe have closed since the end of the cold war, Menwick Hill has expanded considerably and is currently having new security precautions installed. With its powerful surveillance systems there is considerable evidence that while military‐type spying continues, much of the surveillance is of private and business conversations. Much commercial advantage is believed to be obtained and used to aid US firms in gaining an advantage over European firms in global competition.

There is no democratic accountability of the activities of Menwick Hill base and in view of all the evidence I believe it should be closed immediately.

  Rübig (PPE), in writing. – (DE) – An explanation by UCLAF is urgently required. Transparency first and last.

  Theonas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) It is self‐evident that the two largest trade and economic powers in the world can and should develop a dialogue. The question is, under what conditions, with what aims, and for whose benefit.

It should not be possible for the draft of an agreement to be rejected by the Council, indeed with some countries seeming to have imposed a veto banning its adoption, because it comes into radical conflict with the interests of European countries, and then, after just a few months, and in essence after changing just the title of the agreement, for that draft to be accepted under pressure from the United States and major capital.

It should not be possible for organisations financed by the Community itself to find that the economic and private lives of the EU's citizens and the telecommunications and electronic systems of its bodies are subject to monitoring and espionage on an extensive scale, via the Echelon system which penetrates worldwide telecommunications systems, and for the information it gathers to be used to the benefit of the United States, as for example in the case of the GATT negotiations, and for the Commission to allege that nothing of the kind has been reported to it.

It should not be possible for the EU to be a co‐signatory to an agreement with the United States, which supposedly safeguards the interests of European companies against extraterritorial US legislation, such as the Helms‐Burton Act on sanctions against companies which violate the economic embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba, and for Mrs Albright then to announce exactly the opposite to Congress, in other words that Europe is subject to US legislation.

In the face of this continual pressure from the United States and major interests, the European Union responds with continual concessions, in obedience to exactly the same monopolistic interests.

According to our information, the European Union's response to unacceptable monitoring by the United States of electronic and telecommunications systems and more generally the media of the digital combined services network, is to decide to set up an analogous system in collaboration with the FBI, quite beyond any democratic control and in clear contravention of the directive on the protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data.

The aim of this dialogue should be to achieve developments which benefit working people, which safeguard and extend their democratic and labour rights both in the European Union and in the United States, and indeed which take into account that one is the other's largest partner in both trade and investment.

Unfortunately, however, that is not possible, because both sides are protagonists of the worldwide capitalist system and the attack it has mounted against working people, and seen in that light, the agreement being promoted supplements the mechanisms which serve their aims and ambitions. A characteristic example is provided by demands for the more effective protection of investments by the adoption of basic principles such as expropriation and compensation, through the related Understanding between the European Union and the USA, which attempts to forestall even the Multipartite Agreement on Investments in the context of the OECD, which has not yet been accepted because of the enormous reactions to which it gave rise.

‐ Campoy Zueco report (A4‐0235/98)

  Pinel (NI). – (FR) Mr President, waste management is an extremely important matter for public health. A country which is unable or unwilling to manage its waste in an ecological manner will have polluted waters and air filled with toxic elements churned out by bad incineration methods. On top of all this, that country"s population will feel the full force of this pollution through its food supply. So, as well as spongiform encephalopathy, hormones and genetic manipulation, we must now also reckon with the accumulation of dioxins and organochlorates in our food chains.

In this context, the use of sewage sludge in agriculture – although this may be stating the obvious – should be controlled by extremely stringent public health standards, since sewage sludge often contains high levels of heavy metals and other active substances.

The rapporteur is therefore right to be concerned over a certain degree of laxity being shown by the Member States. However, how does he hope to initiate infringement proceedings against Member States when, as he himself freely admits, Community legislation is neither transparent nor coherent? The Commission"s role should be to advise and to provide the necessary tools for a certain degree of convergence between Member States, not to intervene in a policing or fiscal capacity.

It is a shame that this idea slightly taints the overall tone of this report.

  Malone (PSE). – (EN) Mr President, I just wish to say that there is very little point in spending time debating and adopting environmental legislation if it is not going to be implemented. We know there is a very low level of harmonisation in this field, which is of vital importance for the single market. Is it not absolutely amazing that you see the manic determination to complete the single market with regard to duty free and nothing being done here? It makes you stop and wonder.

In the short time available to me I wish to correct a remark made yesterday in plenary by my constituency colleague, Ms McKenna, and reported in the Irish Times today. My understanding is that the study in the Lancet magazine referring to dangers for pregnant women living near landfill sites refers to sites where hazardous and toxic waste – not normal waste – is being dumped. In this regard the Irish Government and authorities are not at fault. Indeed, many references to Ireland in the report are out of date.

The only two legal cases pending against the Irish Government include one with regard to the provision of waste management plans (similar cases are being taken out against several Member States). Plans are now being rewritten for Ireland and are practically ready for resubmission and so it is likely that this case will be dropped.

The second case pending against the Irish Government concerns the failure to supply the Commission with information on hazardous waste installations. Again, I am assured by the Commission that this matter is now being addressed, and it is likely that legal proceedings will be discontinued.

Finally, I would urge the Irish authorities to address, without further delay, the deficiency we have with regard to recycling facilities and also the fact that in Ireland agricultural waste is not considered waste, and so we have the spectacle of beautiful lakes – like the lakes of Killarney – being full of phosphates and so on and fish being killed because agricultural effluent is going into these lakes. I wish the authorities could do something about the fact that we still have a landfill site in Rogerstown estuary in north County Dublin, in an area which is a natural habitat for wild birds and so on.

  Ahern (V), in writing. – (EN) I am deeply concerned about the festering waste crisis in Ireland. At present the EU is taking action against Ireland for failure to implement a proper national waste management plan and in particular for failing to deal with hazardous waste. Ireland has not been measuring up. The EU is now demanding a major overhaul and a national hazardous waste plan with individual local authority plans. Once more Ireland has been seen to be dragging its feet.

Toxic and hazardous waste have been the subject of studies in the UK which show that pregnant mothers are still at risk if living within two miles of a hazardous waste facility. Babies born within two miles of landfill sites where hazardous waste is dumped are at serious risk of birth defects. Deformities and illnesses such as spina bifida, hole in the heart and faulty blood systems have been noted in children born to mothers who live near industrial landfill sites. Ireland has officially been exporting hazardous waste. However waste has been found illegally dumped around the country and the Commission will be investigating complaints.

The key question is, who is going to pay for the increase in cost of waste disposal as the EU noose tightens on Ireland? If the polluter pays, this means a revolution with waste reduction and recycling playing the primary role and decreasing the need for landfill to 20 %.

This is an indictment of the lax attitude in this country to the enforcement of waste laws. Our green image is being undermined. Agriculture is the biggest cause of river and lake pollution in Ireland and yet agricultural waste has been ignored in previous waste management plans. The Commission is specifically aware of this. A recent plan for County Waterford failed to provide for the management of approximately 1 million tonnes of agricultural waste per annum. While the Irish Government is pussy‐footing around legislation, the waste builds up and destroys our environment.

The Commission has called for a deadline for reports in September 1998. Will Ireland meet the deadline or will fines be imposed?

  Bonde and Sandbæk (I‐EDN), in writing. – (DA) It is very disheartening to note that no Member States have incorporated the European Waste Catalogue into national legislation and that the definition of waste therefore differs from one country to another, leaving large loopholes in the implementation of sustainable environmental legislation. It is also particularly regrettable that the Member States do not implement the common policy on waste adopted through the four directives in question more effectively, let alone honour their obligations on reporting to the Commission.

Thus the individual Member States are failing to apply key environmental principles and, generally, to promote and apply a waste policy which meets the needs of human health and welfare. We therefore favour giving the European Environment Agency powers to collect the necessary data on the implementation by individual Member States of the common policy on waste management, if these comparative analyses can promote the codification of European waste policy.

Nevertheless we are very critical of this report. On the one hand, we do not feel that waste should be regarded as a commodity that can be traded across frontiers and hence be regulated as part of the internal market. Waste policy is really an environmental matter and should therefore only be dealt with in the context of environmental policy. On the other hand, the report recommends in paragraph 3 that the question be covered by a regulation rather than, as now, by a directive. This is not the way to improve implementation of the common environmental policy, let alone to pursue more effective, committed and democratic Community policy in general.

Through regulations, which have direct legal force in the individual Member States, power is taken away from the national parliaments. They are deprived of influence on decisions affecting the concrete national implementation of Community law. We cannot endorse this transfer of legislative power from democratically elected bodies to the EU Commission. A genuine and responsible environmental policy cannot be forced through by legislation – otherwise many more Member States would have honoured their obligations – but requires a fundamental change of attitude. The common environmental policy is indeed necessary, but not sufficient in itself.

  Caudron (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I would first like to congratulate our colleague on the clarity and openness of his report. Such openness is relatively rare and so is worth highlighting. Also, I would like to show my support for the requests made by Mr Campoy Zueco and point out a few environmental truths.

Unfortunately, the Member States" reluctance to apply the directives on waste management is not limited to environmental matters alone. I would also like to express my frustration at the repeated statements of good intent made by our governments, when their actions are so far removed from these declarations.

There is no point in drawing up a list of such breaches of regulations. It is of the utmost importance that those in power fully assess the importance of the environment issue as the new millennium approaches. At the risk of repeating myself, we cannot offload our problems onto future generations indefinitely. The threats hanging over us are real and very worrying.

I would also like to show my support for the rapporteur"s suggestions, both on a conclusive definition of waste and on taking all the necessary steps against recalcitrant governments. I agree with most of the analyses and proposals made by our colleague.

Lastly, although I am in favour of some tax incentives, there is a considerable risk of finding ourselves hemmed in by tightening budgets. It is very likely that the next few years will be particularly rich in terms of environment policy, and we will have to show our strength, in this field as in others. Of course we must help, but we must first punish those who do not respect the law.

  Lis Jensen and Krarup (I‐EDN), in writing. – (DA) Despite the good intentions of the Campoy Zueco report and despite the critical matters the report deals with, we cannot support it. We think that the Campoy Zueco report touches on the fundamental problem of the EU, which is that the EU does not have legislative legitimacy. This means that the Member States often choose to set aside EU legislation, despite the fact that they themselves joined in adopting it.

The Campoy Zueco report addresses breaches of the EU rules on waste management. Let there be no doubt that we find it reprehensible that EU countries – and moreover other countries too – resort to sloppy practices in their management of waste, to the detriment of their own citizens, the national environment and the global environment. Thus we can only call on all countries, not least the industrialised countries, to take their global environmental responsibilities seriously, also where waste management is concerned.

Our position is that the proposals of the Campoy Zueco report on an increased role for the Commission and the EC Court of Justice with respect to the Member States are unlikely to help all that much. They are not proposals that will strengthen the EU's legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens of the EU Member States. The best means of strengthening the will of the countries to take their environmental responsibility seriously is to strengthen national and local democracy, so that the citizens themselves can ensure that the elected authorities are aware of their responsibilities. What we need is not more EU government from the top, but more democracy.

  Souchet (I‐EDN), in writing. – (FR) Waste management is such an important economic and environmental issue that we must step up our efforts in this field.

Firstly, on behalf of the Europe of Nations Group, I wish to protest at the fact that, at Commission level, the definition of ‘waste" in the European Union was deliberately omitted, even before the single market was established and therefore before customs checks were abolished on commercial transactions. As a result, different interpretations of the definition of ‘waste" in Member States have meant that hazardous waste has been channelled through some of the less diligent countries, and this is the main reason why we have seen a certain level of hazardous waste traffic develop.

Our group has tabled two amendments on ecotaxes. For several years, we have seen ecotaxes becoming more common on packaging, and in this particular field, all measures introduced by the Member States must be coordinated at Community level. All too often, these ecotaxes are established to hinder the internal market, and this is not acceptable. In Germany and France, we have developed a common logo – a green dot – which means that all packagers marketing finished products in these two states must make a contribution and help solve waste‐related environmental problems. This sort of easy, clean and efficient measure must become more common and must be used to counter measures introduced by other Member States such as Belgium, which is trying to promote its national production by imposing particularly heavy and discouraging procedures.

Finally, on a more general note, the Europe of Nations Group can only regret the fact that European legislation is so cumbersome in the field of waste management. There are in fact 20 different legal acts on this matter, undermining the principle of transparency, and this is further compounded since the concept of waste is not defined in the same way in the different Member States. Consequently, we would like to ask the Commission to fulfil its proper role, rather than constantly creating a role of political initiative on all matters for itself, which it is not meant to do. Its role is to coordinate and simplify legislation on waste management and related issues. It is perhaps worth the House reminding the Commission of this.

‐ Mohamed Alí report (A4‐0167/98)

  Martinez (NI). – (FR) Mr President, we all agree with our colleague Mr Mohammed Alí in that Averroës is an important figure, just as the Arabian Montesquieu, Ibn Khaldun, was an important figure. But if we are to believe Maimonides and the Catalan philosopher Raymond Lulle, Averroës could be the man who wrote the booklet ‘The Three Impostors" about the Hebrew, Christian and Muslim religions.

So, to use this strong and free spirit to represent the new dogma of multi‐ethnic society or the sentimental defence of human rights is an affront to his memory. We all agree that a university should be set up, with Mediterranean sponsorship, to celebrate the 800th anniversary of Averroës"s death, but to use this man to symbolise violent and arrogant immigrants is a rather odd thing to do with such a refined spirit. Can you imagine Averroës going to a rap concert in Córdoba, or selling drugs on back streets, behind the wheel of a BMW, all made up and deceiving tourists on the street?

Are we, in fact, talking about two Muslim worlds? The world of Al Mansur dominated the West through its intellectual superiority, but today"s Muslim world dominates us through its barbarity.

So we should not make Averroës the godfather of the Taliban, nor of the jihad, since if he were alive today, there would be a fatwa out against him and his throat would have been cut by Muslims, by the same Muslims that we want to use his memory to represent.

  Flemming (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted against the Mohamed Alí report, but not because I could not wholeheartedly endorse its underlying intentions. I merely believe that a report which is so short that it only scratches the surface of its subject simply cannot do justice to this highly complex issue with which we are confronted.

There is much in the report that I can wholeheartedly support, for example its representation of the situation of women in Islam, but there are also parts with which I cannot agree. I just believe it does not make sense to try and cover such a sensitive, complex, broad and important subject with a report of this kind. It is the wrong approach.

  Berthu (I‐EDN), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has just adopted Mr Mohamed Alí"s report which calls for Europe to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the death of Ibn Rushd – Averroës – a twelfth century philosopher with a liberal interpretation of Islam.

This report is accompanied by a rather unusual explanatory statement which describes Averroës: ’Averroës was born in the year 520/1126 and was called Abu‐l Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad Ibn Rushd, which perhaps explains why we have since the Middle Ages preferred the much shorter name Averroës, just as we prefer to say Avicenna when referring to the other great Islamic philosopher Ibn Sina... Your rapporteur will first seek to familiarize you with Averroës, asking you to take an imaginary trip to the. cinema, to see ‘Le Destin’ by Youssef Chabine. The splendid images, the music and the dancing tell the story of Al Mansur, vizir of Córdoba, the sheik Riad and Averroës. And the fact is that few of us were acquainted with the life of the cadi of Córdoba before we saw this film. Averroës was the doctor of the emirs Yusuf and Al‐Mansur, and a philosopher. He was attacked by the advocates of strict religious orthodoxy, fell into disgrace, was exiled and latterly rehabilitated. Averroës, who died on 10 December 1198, ended his days as the premier doctor of the Court of Marakesh. Of all Spaniards, he is the one which has left the deepest imprint on human thought."

The text which Parliament has adopted does not conceal its aims, since in the first recital, it announces that ‘European society has multicultural, multi‐ethnic and multi‐religious roots which are vital features of its heritage and its multifaceted identity ..." I am sorry to say that I do not agree with these claims. The various societies of European countries are indeed different, but they have some very deep‐rooted common references which come from their Christian identity and, if we go further back in time, from their Celtic, Gallic, Roman, Greek or Germanic roots. Even if several religions have contributed to a common European background, their contributions cannot be regarded as having equal weight. Islam in particular has helped forge our identity as much through contrast with it as through the positive contributions it has made.

In view of this, I am sorry to say that the Mohamed Alí report misjudges our identity. Also, it concludes with some absurd proposals, such as calling on Member States of the EU to ‘promote the vocational and academic training of imams and other religious leaders in Europe". We must admire the rapporteur"s attempt to keep a balance, as he did write ‘and other religious leaders" after mentioning imams. Nonetheless, we would like to make our disapproval felt, as we do not believe that Member States should have to make compulsory payments to finance religions when some of the fundamental aspects of these religions go against the principles of our democracies.

  Blot (NI), in writing. – (FR) Averroës was a brilliant scholar but, at the same time, he was a symbol of failure – the result of trying to combine Greek philosophy with Islam. This is a lesson for all those who dream of seeing a distorted and secularised Islam which incorporates a human rights ideology. I do not think that Islam will betray its own nature in this way.

I also believe that the nature of Europe is rather different, as it is Graeco‐Christian. Aristotle was more successful in the West than Averroës was in the Islamic world. In his work ‘Politics", Aristotle explains that all democratic cities are culturally uniform and that uncontrolled immigration can destroy the city. We should therefore heed this example. As regards Muslims resident in Europe, they should be able to practise their religion with dignity and in private.

Yet on a public level, Islam has no place in Europe both for its sake – so that it can maintain its purity – and for our own. Other schools of thought, with the best of intentions, may wish to see a demagogic mix of people, yet history has shown that such hopes are in vain. This is why Averroës was more successful in the West than in the Islamic world. We should face up to this and learn from this clear lesson.

  Féret (NI), in writing. – (FR) Our colleague Mr Mohamed Alí has single‐handedly delivered this report. His own‐initiative report was conceived two years ago and has just been born. In my home town, on the border between the French and Belgian Hainaut regions, when a mother‐to‐be is late giving birth, we say she will give birth to a donkey.

In spite of the two‐year pregnancy, I find the new‐born report we have just seen to be rather underhand. By introducing us to Abu‐l Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad Ibn Rushd as Averroës, the rapporteur portrays him as a link between Islam and the Graeco‐Roman civilisations. He is using a deceit to make a bitter pill easier to swallow.

I would like to emphasise three truths; firstly, religious matters do not come under the competences of this Parliament and so this report should never have been born. Secondly, Averroës was rejected by Islam and severely criticised by Christian theologians. And lastly, we cannot talk of tolerance when mosques are springing up at a rate of knots in Europe, but the same cannot be said of Christian churches in Islamic countries.

  Leperre‐Verrier (ARE), in writing. – (FR) The 800th anniversary of the death of the visionary and philosopher Averroës would be an excellent chance to review links between the European Union, Islam and its Muslims, a subject often viewed with suspicion and incomprehension by both sides.

Averroës"s modern and humanist thinking should lead us to question the place of Muslims in Europe, without any prior ideological misconceptions. The sensible proposals put forward by our Committee on Culture should be carried out in each of the Member States. These proposals will be much more efficient than the security‐based obsession with fighting a small minority that refuses to combine religion and modernity.

However, I think it is a shame that such a small amount of space was given over to the concept of secularity in the report, as this would help us to overcome divisive feelings and would be a true exercise in tolerance.

I also hope that more relevant future actions will be undertaken which will allow us not only to avoid social deprivation becoming the territory of a few fundamentalist movements, but also to make it easier for non‐practising Muslims and all those who practise Islam privately to become a full part of society. I would like to point out that more than half of these people are nationals of one of our Member States.

  Lindqvist (ELDR), in writing. – (SV) I agree with many of the proposals, but this is not a matter for the EU or the European Parliament. The problems described must be dealt with in alternative ways. And this applies to other religions too.

  Seillier (I‐EDN), in writing. – (FR) We voted against the report drawn up by our colleague Mr Mohamed Alí on ‘Islam and European Averroës Day". This was mainly out of respect for the principle of subsidiarity – it is up to each of our different Member States to consider the questions posed by the presence of Muslims in their particular country. We also voted against the report because history is different from one country to another and there are different understandings of integration and secularity. Also, as regards paragraph 12, point C, it is not up to Member States to provide training for imams, even if the author of the report does describe this as ‘vocational and academic scientific and professional training". This is a rather odd and simplistic way of viewing it, and could even be deemed outrageous from an Islamic point of view. The Muslim community itself is responsible for training imams and it must therefore distance itself from, and even turn down, imams sent by Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.

After some heated discussions in the Committee on Culture on the distinction between secularism and secularity, our colleague did claim to respect secularity. At the root of secularity are Christ"s words from the gospel: ’Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar"s and unto God the things that are God"s". I do not doubt the sincerity of this report, but I am sorry to point out that this only represents the author himself, who does not claim to represent other members of his faith in any way.

There is also a certain ambiguity in the explanatory statement, as the rapporteur sometimes makes claims for Islam on a purely cultural level and sometimes for Islam as a religion. But is such a distinction possible when seen from the Koran"s holistic perspective, a perspective which states that the Islamic faith is inseparable from a religious way of life? It is indeed a culture but it is also a body of political legislation, a family code and so on, and it is the duty of the faithful to live by these rules as soon as they have the means to do so.

We therefore cannot agree to several of the demands made by Mr Mohamed Alí. Nonetheless, there is one point in paragraph 11, point F which, if amended, does seem very interesting. Averroës day would be the ideal opportunity to set up a ‘Euro‐Islamic" university in one of our European countries to address matters such as the relationship between faith, religion and politics, from the point of view of Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and other Christian faiths in comparison with, for example, secularity and freemasonry. What is the relationship between philosophy and theology according to all these different points of view?

Such an initiative would be a way of honouring Averroës"s memory, whose thinking was undeniably important for European philosophers but – and this does not bode well – his thinking was not as important for the Muslim world.

  Vaz da Silva (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Mohamed Alí report on Islam exemplifies democracy into action. After a long and difficult passage through the committees and political groups, the House finally has before it a text which may well achieve a consensus which originally appeared unattainable. It demonstrates that the democratic principles of tolerance, respect for freedom and for diversity upon which Europe is based can yield positive results. They are valid under any circumstances, even – or indeed particularly – those where it is necessary to engage in dialogue with political and ideological systems that do not apply these values.

The report maintains that Islam does not identify with fundamentalism and that, on the contrary, it is based on principles of tolerance. The report calls on the European Union to participate in bringing the liberal facet of Islam to the fore, by welcoming its political and religious leaders for training in Europe and providing immigrants with conditions in which they may live in accordance with their culture. I agree with this appeal on the part of Islam to Europe. Therefore, I support the report. It is time for Europe to emerge from its passivity and remoteness, acting as though Islam were nothing to do with it, as though Islam were not already part of Europe.

But Europe also has an appeal of its own to make to Islam; the Muslims who chose to live in Europe chose by implication to live in accordance with its principles and its laws. They cannot use democracy to reject Europe. Individual freedoms and private practices are one thing, the public area and social practices are another. Muslims must give up the chadar in schools, just as Europeans must remove their shoes and cover themselves when they enter a mosque.

Since the Member States of the European Union must live together in intercultural harmony, its peoples should:

‐ respect each other and become familiar with one another"s cultures,

‐ live in accordance with their own values in private life and in accordance with the common values of society in public life,

‐ create conditions of openness and social dynamism which permit all individuals of all races and creeds to join the group with which they identify.

European society, and I am thinking of the Portuguese situation with which I am most familiar, is today already extremely complex and multicultural. We must now focus on helping to make it intercultural.

  Wolf (V), in writing. – (DE) The ‘Euro‐Mediterranean partnership" is not only a fervent wish. It is based on a historical reality which, regrettably, is still largely ignored. The European West would still be a nonentity today if it had not been able to develop over many centuries as the protégé and ‘poor relation" of the rich and civilised Orient. This applies quite specifically to Islam too, without the culture, literature and philosophy of which neither the modern ‘enlightened" Europe nor the Latin Middle Ages, in which some of the main social and intellectual seeds of the Enlightenment were sown, would never have come about. Without the Jewish and Arab, Talmudic and Islamic reception of Aristotelian and other Antique philosophy, from which the leading Arab and Islamic philosophers developed key concepts such as the univocity of being (Avicenna/Ibn Sina) and the differentiation of truth (Averroës/Ibn Rashid), the world would never have experienced either the flowering of Scholasticism, the Renaissance, or the modern sciences with the sense of mission that was shaped for them by Bacon and Descartes.

The historically conditioned suppression within Western Europe in the early modern age of the decisive contribution made by the Islamic East to the constitution of both the Christian and the humanist West has now become, if it was not already so, an ideological shackle in the quest to understand reality and in cross‐cultural dialogue. We can therefore only support emphatically anything that will help to create the conditions for our overdue broad dialogue with the Islamic world: colloquia, universities, educational curricula, religious equality, commemoration days, etc.

Instead of continuing to pursue a mythical Christian definition of the European identity, we should finally open our eyes to reality – to the multi‐religious and philosophically pluralist reality of our common history, the multicultural reality of our societies and the multi‐centred reality of the vast Mediterranean region, the peaceful common development of which demands, among other things, robust and mutual cross‐cultural understanding.

(The sitting was suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS FONTAINE
Vice‐President

(1) Tabled by Mr Alan J. Donnelly and Mrs Erika Mann on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, MrValdivielso de Cué and Mr Kittelmann on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party, Mr Pasty, Mrs van Bladel and Mr Pompidou on behalf of the Union for Europe Group and Mrs Plooij‐Van Gorsel on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democratic and Reformist Party, seeking to replace motions for resolutions B4‐0803/98, B4‐0805/98, B4‐0806/98 and B4‐0809/98 by a new text.