Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 26 October 2000 - Strasbourg

2. Vote

Draft general budget of the European Union – 2001 Financial Year

- Draft amendments and proposed modifications concerning appropriations in Section III of the draft general budget for 2001 concerning the Commission

- Draft amendments to Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII of the draft general budget for 2001 concerning the European Parliament, the Council, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, and the Ombudsman.

Before the vote:

(The Greens opened yellow umbrellas with the words "Climate Change" on them)

President. – That yellow goes very nicely with our blue seats but, even so, I invite you to furl your umbrellas, so that the vote on the budget can proceed with the dignity befitting this Parliament.

⁂

  Wynn (PSE), chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – Madam President, as you said earlier, this will be a long process. Normally we like to streamline the budget votes so that we can get through them in as quick a time as possible. However, we have a lot of amendments on this occasion. Whilst I respect people's democratic right to table amendments, can I just warn Members of this House that if some of the amendments which are not in the general framework agreement between the groups are voted, then we will begin to exceed ceilings and we will have to stop the vote.

We have no margins in virtually all the categories. If this vote does not go as we had planned, then just be aware that I may be standing up, or Mrs Haug may be standing up, to say we have to stop the vote. We can then assess what we can vote on.

I would like to make two pleas. One is to our colleagues in the Committee on Agriculture who have tabled over 30 amendments. The amending letter will be coming forward before second reading and that is when we will take final decisions on agricultural issues. If I could ask them to withdraw those amendments it would save a lot of time.

I would also ask Mr Heaton-Harris and his colleagues if they could withdraw their 33 amendments. Once again that will save us a tremendous amount of time. I must say the 33 amendments are far better than the 393 that were tabled by Mr Heaton-Harris and his colleagues in committee. So we have to be grateful there are only 33, but I would welcome it if he would withdraw them. It would speed this process up considerably.

  Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Madam President, following Mr Wynn's observation about the number of amendments my committee might or might not have tabled, it is fair to point out that this is part of the democratic process and if we are not here to question and raise points, then what are we here for?

  Haug (PSE), general rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, I would point out though that we still have not received an answer to one question, namely whether the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is prepared to withdraw its amendments. I would be very interested in this, because it is by far our most serious problem. You see, if we accept one single amendment – you know this, fellow delegates know it, I have said it more than once – then we will, as it were, already be in breach of the Interinstitutional Agreement, because we will then have gone over the margin for payments. Would you perhaps like to repeat the question to someone from the Committee on Agriculture?

  Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. – (DE) Madam President, I understand the rapporteur's objections, but the vote on the amendments tabled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development will not only be about money but also about a particular political line. The amendments go some way towards making it clear what the Agriculture Committee wants, and unfortunately we do not see ourselves in a position to withdraw them; instead, we will put them to the vote and we will see what the House makes of them. We in the Agriculture Committee believe that the views which they express are sensible and we cannot therefore withdraw the amendments. I hope that I am also speaking here on behalf of the other coordinators.

  President. – The reply is clear. Mrs Haug, I believe you want to present some compromise proposals.

⁂

  Haug (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, as we do every year and in every budgetary procedure, we will of course have to start by voting on a few additional technical adjustments. Last-minute negotiations have been held with all the groups and, in my capacity as rapporteur, I should like to table a number of technical corrections on five points. The first concerns line B3-300 on information measures. Here the groups have agreed to place 50% against the budget line and to leave 50% in the reserve, and not to put the total amount in the reserve as previously decided. The same applies to line B3-306 for the PRINCE information campaign. There too we should now like to place 50% against the budget line and 50% in the reserve.

Where line B5-312 – for the Medicines Agency in London – is concerned, we should now like to pay an additional 1.3 million because we have noted that the Agency now has a heavier workload because of orphan drugs. So, we have an additional 1.3 million for the Medicines Agency. The fourth line concerns the performance reserve. When we decided on the performance reserve in the Budgets Committee we made a technical correction, deleting two lines in this reserve which no longer contained any amounts at all, just p.m. entries. These are lines B7-5211 and B7-547. They concern cooperation with the Baltic region and the civil administration in the Balkans.

The final line in this compromise package for the groups is A-3027. This relates to the International Centre for European Training. Here it is intended to place the total amount against the line – so there are no longer any reserves – and at the same time, the appropriations are to be increased by EUR 300 000 to 1.8 million. These are the technical changes. They have been agreed with the groups, and I would ask you to make the necessary adjustments before the vote on the budget so that we can go into the vote with the package agreed.

  Ferber (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the administrative budgets are rather less complicated in this respect, but here too we may need to make a technical adjustment, depending on what the House decides today. I should like to ask you also to support our making the necessary adjustments to budget line A-206, Acquisition of immovable property, depending on which amendments are adopted, so that we do not exceed our self-imposed ceiling of 20% of total administrative expenditure. I believe that this is customary in the House and I would be grateful if you could support this proposal.

⁂

  President. – I have received a motion for outright rejection of the general budget for 2001 tabled by Mr Wurtz.

  Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Madam President, we already know the result of the coming vote, but we wanted to put down a marker. The basic problem our resolution addresses is going to remain with us throughout the budgetary procedure and beyond. So, if our fears are confirmed, and whatever the vote today, I just hope all Members who share our ambitions for Europe will join us in the fray.

  President. – I shall put the motion for outright rejection of the draft general budget to the vote. I would remind you that a qualified majority is required.

(Parliament rejected the motion)

- Before the vote on draft Amendment No 19

  Maat (PPE-DE). – (NL) Madam President, we voted in block 1. The vote concerns an amendment tabled by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party to increase the tobacco subsidy by EUR 5 million. Yet, I have noticed that proposals have also been moved here to reduce the budget. I fail to see the connection between the two, and furthermore, it escapes me completely that in block 1, this increase was proposed by the Liberals, and that under Amendments Nos 6, 4 and 9, a number of the Members of the same Liberal Group subsequently proposed scrapping the budget altogether. Either this is a way of pursuing Liberal politics, where the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, or there is a lack of coordination. Surely we cannot vote in favour of an increase one moment and vote in favour of a reduction the next. If I am being honest, I feel we are to some extent deceiving the electorate.

  President. – Those comments are no longer appropriate.

- Before the vote on Amendment No 929

  Haug (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Maat may wish to make the same comment as me. You see, we spoke again this morning. Amendment No 929, tabled by the Budget Committee, concerns two lines in heading 1b. They relate to young farmers and environmental measures. I should now like to propose an oral amendment to change these lines. We give the young farmers an additional 10 million and take the 10 million to finance this from the environmental measures. The effect on the overall budget is neutral, but we would accommodate the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

  Maat (PPE-DE). – (NL) Madam President, I can only inform you that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development fully supports the rapporteur’s proposal.

  President. – We have a request to table an oral amendment. Is anyone opposed to this amendment being taken into consideration?

(As more than 12 members rose, the President deemed the proposed oral amendment inadmissible)

  Haug (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, in that case the amendment will unfortunately have to be put to the vote in the form proposed by the Committee on Budgets. You all know that, unfortunately, there is no margin, especially not in 1b. There is no margin at all there.

Report (A5-0300/2000) by Mrs Haug, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2001 – Section III, Commission [C5-0300/2000 – 1999/2190(BUD)]

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

Report (A5-0292/2000) by Mr Ferber, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2001

- Section I, European Parliament

- Section II, Council

- Section IV, Court of Justice

- Section V, Court of Auditors

- Section VI, Economic and Social Committee

- Section VII, Committee of the Regions

- Section VIII, European Ombudsman

[C5-0300/2000 – 1999/2191(BUD)]

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

Amendment No 3:

  Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Madam President, on the next amendment tabled by the EDD Group, I wonder whether you could give us some clarification, because it is my reading that if we vote for this amendment, it means our travel expenses will be reimbursed at cost, and if we vote against this amendment, then we maintain the present travel allowance.

I just want to check this is actually the case, because it does change the way people might vote.

  President. – The honourable Members can all read, Mr Heaton-Harris.

  Blak (PSE). – (DA) Madam President, this is the fiftieth time that my fellow MEP, Jens-Peter Bonde, has tabled this proposal. Could we not give him a program for his computer so that he does not have to write it out every time? It would make his work easier.

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

Report (A5-0251/2000) by Mrs Rühle, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft ECSC operating budget for 2001 [COM (2000) 360 – C5-0340/2000 – 2000/2060(BUD)]

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

Report (A5-0236/2000) by Mr Colom i Naval, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the Interinstitutional Agreement on financial statements

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

President. – I congratulate all our rapporteurs. I also congratulate the Chairmen of the Committees and everyone else who has actively contributed to this excellent result.

(Applause)

⁂

IN THE CHAIR: MRS LIENEMANN
Vice President

Report (A5-0298/2000) by Mr Clegg, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on unbundled access to the local loop [COM(2000) 0394 – C5-0432/2000 – 2000/0185(COD)]
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
***
Report (A5-0273/2000) by Mr Jové Peres, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) 2200/96 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, Regulation (EC) 2201/96 on the common organisation of the market in processed fruit and vegetables and Regulation (EC) 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits [COM(2000) 0433 – C5-0391/2000 – 2000/0191(CNS)]
- Before the vote

  Lambert (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, my name appears as a signatory to various amendments on this report. I would like to assure the House that I have signed no amendments. I have not joined the Italian delegation for this occasion.

  President. – That will be corrected, Mrs Lambert, and now I propose that we move on to the vote.

- Before the vote on Amendment No 60

  Jové Peres (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, in Amendment No 60 there has been a minor calculation error that should be corrected, which affects the thresholds for pears in the Netherlands: instead of 243 tonnes it should read 279. I simply propose this minor correction, if nobody opposes it.

(Parliament gave its assent to the oral amendment being taken into consideration)

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0276/2000) by Mr Nicholson, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing additional technical measures for the recovery of the stock of cod in the Irish Sea (ICES Division VIIa) [COM(2000)0190 – C5-0219/2000 – 2000/0071(CNS)]

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0284/2000) by Mr Cushnahan, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the First and Second Annual Reports by the European Commission on the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong [COM(1998) 0796 – C4-0100/1999 et COM(2000) 0294 – C5-0500/2000 – 1999/2000(COS)]

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0296/2000) by Mr Van Hecke, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on cooperation with ACP Countries involved in armed conflicts [COM(1999) 0240 – C5-0115/1999 – 1999/2118(COS)]

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Motion for a resolution (B5-0804/2000) by Mr Gawronski and others, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mr Sakellariou and others, on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, Mrs Malmström and Mr Haarder, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, Mrs Frassoni and Mr Wuori, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Mr Di Lello Finuoli, Mrs Boudjenah and Mr Manisco, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, on the implementation of ‘human rights/democracy’ budget lines relating to campaigns in favour of a moratorium on capital punishment

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0270/2000) by Mr Moreira Da Silva, on behalf of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Commission communication on EU policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Towards a European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) [COM(2000) 0088 – C5-0192/2000 – 2000/2103(COS)]

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0271/2000) by Mr Moreira Da Silva, on behalf of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Commission Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions trading within the European Union [COM(2000) 0087 – C5-0193/2000 – 2000/2104(COS)]

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Motion for a resolution (B5-0803/2000) by Mrs C. F. Jackson, on behalf of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Commission’s strategy for The Hague Conference on Climate Change (CdP6)

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Joint motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ on the floods in Italy and Spain

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0197/2000) by Mr Lund, on behalf of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community strategy for endocrine disrupters – a range of substances suspected of interfering with the hormone systems of humans and wildlife [COM(1999)0706 – C5-0107/2000 – 2000/2071(COS)]

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

- 2001 Budget

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, it was with great regret that I had to vote against the budget as I find the items devoted to improving the living conditions of the elderly and pensioners to be totally inadequate, or rather completely non-existent. I furthermore note that a significant proportion of these funds have been earmarked for the notorious Community action programmes. It is my opinion that these programmes fail to perform the beneficial role that they should in terms of the utilisation of Community funds. I believe that the European Union must completely reassess the way in which it spends the monies of the 15 Member States.

  Krivine and Vachetta (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) If the European Parliament were a real parliament, and if Europe were something more than a monetary and free-trade area, then the European budget would represent a great deal more than 1% of GDP. That kind of budget would be needed to harmonise social security systems and implement coordinated policy on energy and transport. It would be funded by the standardised taxation of capital. But it is no good dreaming: the Europe of today is dominated by neo-liberal dogma which seeks to reduce state subsidies and the Structural Funds to the strict minimum. Instead of controlling the erratic movements of capital, the priority is ‘structural reforms’ actually aimed at privatising and deregulating anything still left to be privatised and deregulated.

The real surprise in this budget relates to external actions, where selfishness and stinginess are the rule. Europe has a special responsibility to the Balkans and the south of the Mediterranean. Contributions that are relatively minor for our richest countries could have a strategic role for peace and development in those regions, yet the choice has been to make significant cuts, which looks like a dangerous policy of burying our heads in the sand. That is why we voted in favour of the motion to reject this budget, contrary to the guidelines proposed.

  Paulsen and Olle Schmidt (ELDR), in writing. – (SV) In the budget vote we have generally voted against the Committee’s proposals to increase agricultural expenses in category 1. The reason is that we believe that the EU’s money can be better used in other areas where it is really needed. It is not reasonable for approximately half of the Union’s total budget each year to be spent on subsidising the production and export of agricultural products. The current Common Agricultural Policy is not only expensive for the Union, but also contributes to higher consumer prices. The export subsidies mean that the EU’s food surplus is dumped on the world market at low prices, as a result of which the food industry in many developing countries, for example, suffers serious competitive disadvantages. The fact that, in addition, the Union provides subsidies for tobacco cultivation is particularly worth commenting on. The EU’s activities and budget should instead be directed towards cross-border problems that the Member States cannot solve themselves. The EU’s agricultural policy, in the form of export and production subsidies, should therefore be wound down and, to a certain extent, replaced by subsidies for bio-diversity and environmental measures.

In the matter of the external measures in category 4, we have chosen to vote according to a line which does not require revision of the Financial Perspective. For us, support for the democracy movement and reconstruction of the countries in the Balkan region is one of the EU’s most important priorities. It is particularly important to be able to offer subsidies for improving the situation in Serbia.

To request a revision of the Financial Perspective at this stage would be unfortunate. If the budget plan is revised, we believe that there will be a significant risk of the EU’s costs generally increasing, which is not currently acceptable. Parliament should therefore act to maintain the Interinstitutional Agreement and to keep the budget within the framework of the budget plan. We believe that funds for the Balkans can instead be taken from the programmes in category 4 that are sadly not fully utilised at present. Funds can also be released through mobilisation of the flexibility instrument.

  Scallon (PPE-DE), in writing. – I welcome the recognition in Parliament that although the European Women's Lobby is recognised as a valuable lobby group on behalf of certain women's positions, there are other women's lobby groups that deserve and must receive support, both financially and politically, at a European level.

No one in the European Parliament would support discrimination or violence against women; we must remember that to deny women a voice is a form of violence against them.

The Budget Committee ruled again this year that this was a monopoly situation, regarding this fund under A-3037, which is unacceptable within the European Union, and the budget line should be opened up to other women’s groups.

As things stand the EWL is, and remains, the sole recipient from this budget line for women’s groups. Other women’s organisations representing many thousands of European women are thus ineligible for funding and left unrepresented.

Democracy and subsidiarity are not served by the EWL having a monopoly and control on all of the woman's budget line. In the interest of giving fair and equal expression to the voices of European women there must be an end to monopoly funding

It is the duty of every elected representative to ensure that the voice of those who are voiceless is clearly heard. If the diverse voices of the women of Europe are to be heard, this monopoly funding situation must end.

We must dedicate ourselves to upholding the European ideals of inclusiveness and democracy and resist the pressure of those groups that wish to maintain an anti-European monopolistic control.

  Herman Schmid and Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) We feel that the ceiling for the budget must absolutely not be exceeded. To obtain sufficient economic funds for increased aid to the Balkans, the Member States must reallocate funds from the available budget. We feel that, if the Member States have the will, they will be able to find available funds that are not being utilised in the budget being worked on today.

  Speroni (TDI), in writing. – (IT) The Members of Parliament belonging to the Lega Nord voted against the draft budget not because they oppose the idea of Europe but because they wanted to show their disapproval of the distorted way that this idea is being put into practice.

If fine words have led the citizens to believe that the Union was attentive to their demands, their requirements and their needs, the vote today has proved the contrary.

Ladies and gentlemen, you will all be aware that the west of Padania has recently been hit by floods, bringing loss of life and substantial material damage. While there is unfortunately nothing that can be done to restore these things, aid measures were necessary and it was our duty to provide them.

But this Parliament, which is always responsive to the needs of communities outside the Union, has shown itself hostile to its own citizens when misfortune has struck, in rejecting the amendments that allocated but a few million euros in their favour. That is why we voted against this draft budget.

- Haug Report (A5-0300/2000)

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the Haug report, just as I voted in favour of my group’s motion to reject the general budget for 2001.

First: because the budget of the European Union is not commensurate with the huge economic needs of the Community of the 15, especially of the countries and regions lagging behind.

Secondly: because the new items for the reconstruction of Yugoslavia – which we need and which should be more substantial – have been found by slashing items for food relief, agriculture, social spending, etc., rather than by increasing the budget, which is what the Member States of the European Union should have done, given that they perpetrated and aided and abetted the destruction of the former Yugoslavia.

Thirdly: because the budget remains a mechanism for applying a policy which falls short on the social and development side and which has not been reorganised despite constant warnings of the fall in the euro.

  Andersson, Blak, Färm, Hedkvist Petersen, Hulthén, Hans Karlsson, Lund, Theorin and Thorning-Schmidt (PSE), in writing. – (SV) As Swedish and Danish Social Democrats, we have today voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal on the EU budget for the budget year 2001. The budget creates a reasonable balance between the need for budget discipline and the EU’s opportunities to implement important activities. In proportion to the Member States’ finances, the Council’s proposal represents the smallest budget for more than 10 years. Parliament wants to increase this somewhat, but we still have a good margin to the budget ceiling.

Nonetheless, Parliament has succeeded in driving through a number of important priorities – especially, increased efforts in the fight against unemployment and poverty, a number of important environmental and equality issues, etc. We have voted against the right’s attacks on the LIFE programme and the European Women's Lobby.

We are firmly resolved to find the funds required in order to be able to provide increased aid for reconstruction and democratisation in the Balkans, including in Serbia, now. Consequently, we call upon the Council to react positively to Parliament’s initiative for a common and long-term solution before the final decision on the budget is taken in December. Revising the budget ceiling for external policy (expenditure category 4) is not an end in itself, but we are prepared to do this if it is required in order to obtain the necessary funds for the Balkans.

We take a critical view of the scope and direction of the EU’s agricultural policy. This needs to undergo more extensive reform in the future, partly in order to provide scope for the expansion of the EU. The EU’s agricultural policy is far too expensive. We are highly critical of the overproduction of agricultural produce and of the fact that the EU is using funds designated for information purposes to sell this surplus. We are also very critical of the extensive subsidy given to tobacco production, which we believe is in direct conflict with the EU’s increased ambitions in the area of public health. On this point, we have voted in favour of amendments that aim to abolish the tobacco subsidy.

We would also like to emphasise how important it is that the implementation of the EU budget is made more efficient, so that we can get to grips with the great backlog that exists in certain areas. The budget system, like the methods for openness, auditing and political control, must now be rapidly improved and modernised.

We, ourselves, have tabled proposals concerning what is known as the Baltic budget line, but have accepted that this will be put on ice for the time being and until such time as an overall solution to the problems within expenditure category 4 has been found. However, Parliament has been delighted to accept the Commission’s proposal to establish new budget sub-headings for local and regional cooperation in the Baltic region within the framework of the Phare pre-accession instrument. We have also voted in favour of an increase in the budget for twin-town cooperation, which we consider to be an important programme for encouraging cooperation at local level within the Union.

  Turchi (UEN), in writing. – (IT) The budget that Parliament has today approved at first reading could be described as uncontroversial and unspectacular.

It has to be said that it is a budget that has been improved along the way, thanks to the efforts of the various political groups who have persuaded the rapporteur to revise the inflexible stance that she initially adopted.

Parliament has been able to rectify, at first reading and without proposing any disproportionate or unreasonable increases, the somewhat reductive approach that the Council adopted in July.

The funds earmarked for vital sectors of the economy in the Member States, such as agriculture, structural measures and external actions have once again taken on a more fitting scale, and this will enable the Commission to see through its commitments.

We would also like to welcome the fact that Parliament has shown itself open to an initiative which, in our opinion, warrants the attention of this House. We refer in particular to the new pilot scheme to finance information measures in the fight against paedophilia.

The Budget for 2001 still comprises obscure items that shower funds on a host of associations and cultural centres, the actual need for which is still to be fully proven. The review of the Financial Perspectives that Parliament has been demanding for some time in order to honour new commitments in the Balkan region, including Serbia, also continues to cast its shadow on proceedings.

We realise that this review represents, once all the available instruments have been employed, from the redistribution of funds to the use of flexibility margins, the only way of addressing onerous and unforeseeable commitments. However, this revision must not, as is quite possible, result in further substantial cuts in the agriculture sector.

Our group will strive to ensure that this does not happen and for this very reason has, in abstaining from the vote, adopted a cautious position on the Haug report that accompanies the 2001 Budget.

- Ferber Report (A5-0292/2000)

  Andersson, Färm, Hedkvist Petersen, Hulthén, Hans Karlsson and Theorin (PSE), in writing. – (SV) Where travel expense refunds for Members of the European Parliament are concerned, we maintain our view that refunds must be made only for actual costs incurred for travel on official business. We have therefore voted in favour of Amendment No 3 from the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, where this is required.

  Andreasen, Busk, Haarder, Jensen and Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR), in writing. – (DA) The Left party supports the idea that the work in progress for a new statute for Members should lead as quickly as possible to a solution in which refunds of travel expenses also reflect the actual costs. That is the solution to the problem – not unhelpful comments on the budget.

  Herman Schmid and Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) The community sector in the Member States has been subjected to major cut-backs for a number of years. In this connection, it is depressing to see that, within the budget of the European Union, there is an incredible amount of unutilised resources and that, in certain cases, resources are being downright squandered. If the European Parliament were now to abolish its Friday sittings in Strasbourg, for example, this would save EUR 1 million.

The European Parliament is also pushing hard for contributions to European political parties to be introduced. It is interesting to note that the EU parties are clearly incapable of inducing either their member parties or the individual members of the member parties to pay a fee for membership of the EU party. Instead, we are forced to finance the EU parties with public funds. That, if anything, demonstrates the low level of motivation that this EU project has, even among politically active citizens.

Otherwise, we make a reservation in respect of the great outflow of funds that is taking place in the EU via agricultural subsidies, regional subsidies, operation of the Economic and Social Committee, etc. The public funds that are being spent by the EU can be better used in the Member States.

- Rühle Report (A5-0251/2000)

  Cauquil (GUE/NGL). – (FR) We have naturally voted against the budget for the ECSC, which until the ECSC Treaty expires will continue to rain down subsidies on shareholders in the iron and steel industry. Considerable sums have already been awarded to the bosses in this sector, allowing them to diversify into juicy new sectors, while many workers – whose jobs have been eliminated – are still unemployed.

Although this draft envisages devoting a certain amount to social assistance, no precise figures are given, while the minimum guarantee should be full salary up to retirement age for all workers affected by future redundancies.

  Konrad (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the ECSC Treaty will soon expire. Nevertheless, in Germany there is a compromise solution for coal which will run until the year 2005. I am assuming – and I hope that the Commission will contribute appropriate constructive solutions – that we will have a transitional arrangement to fill the three years between 2002 and 2005. But for the time after 2005 I should like to make it quite clear that there can be no 10% energy base in the EU Member States which is exempt from all supervision by the European Union's competition authorities. This is no solution for the future. This solution would damage the European Union's competition policy and at the same time make energy more expensive – on top of the effect of promoting renewable energies – which would in the end harm Europe's desirability as a business location.

- Clegg Report (A5-0298/2000)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, Ms Giuseppina Cardazzi, who is elderly and infirm but interested in electronics and the Internet, particularly as she is not mobile, asked me to help her understand electronic communication as she wanted to purchase a device that would enable her to access the Internet. She asked me whether, since she had little money as a result of having to spend a lot on medicines, it was possible to access the Internet for free. I told her that it was, and it is for this reason that I voted in favour of the Clegg report, as it enables one to access Internet sites by connecting up to the existing network at a reduced cost.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The arguments for promoting competition imply yet another attack on the public telecommunications sector in an area of basic services that are vital to the public, without any corresponding improvement in the public service provided.

As the report states, unbundled access to the local loop allows new entrants to compete with notified operators in offering high bit-rate data transmission services for continuous Internet access and for multimedia applications based on digital subscriber line technology as well as voice telephony services, using local network infrastructures that have already been installed by other operators, generally public service operators.

Furthermore, the haste with which this liberalisation of the highly profitable telecommunications sector is going ahead, following the conclusions of the Lisbon Summit, does not augur well for the protection of consumers’ interests or the interests of people working in the sector. This is another reason for voting against this report.

  Krivine and Vachetta (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) We are voting against this report even if it does seem a mere formality in the process of the liberalisation of telecommunications. The amendments add nothing, apart from some further praise for the alleged virtues of competitiveness. What ‘unbundled access to the local loop’ actually does is force public operators to put the leasing of public telephone lines out to commercial tender as soon as possible. So 20 to 30% of the contracts will again be offered to private competition.

Many have already anticipated this directive, like France Telecom. As well as the new constraints imposed on staff, particularly in the commercial services sector, inequality in the treatment of users is going to get worse. The regulation of the sector by the law of maximum return will result in the creation of profitable and less profitable areas in the territory covered. A high quality European public service must be imposed, to include mobiles phones and the Internet, to meet the basic needs of employees and users. That policy would put a stop to the generalised liberalism that is thriving under the French Presidency.

  Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (DE) It is with the purpose of effectively muzzling the national parliaments, above all, that the European Commission, in its frenzy of regulation and liberalisation, has tabled a proposal for a directly binding regulation rather than a directive, which is to be whipped through Parliament and the Council of Ministers with all hands on deck so that it can enter into force as early as 31 December of this year. I have never seen such a show of strength.

The urgency is all the more suspicious because the proposed unbundling of the local loop in the telephone network will lead to the impossible situation of the incumbent operators financing their own competitors, particularly in countries like Luxembourg, where the telephone line rental is kept low for social reasons. 480 francs per month do not cover the costs. It is to be assumed that the incumbent operators will have to let their competitors connect to the lines for even lower prices which do not cover the costs. In the short term they will probably tempt customers with free calls, which will of course lead to completely ruinous competition, which, at the end of the day, the small end-customers will have to pay for.

What is being proposed here is the thorough dispossession of the former operator, which will lose a huge amount of money – around a billion francs in my small country – which of course will not be available to modernise the fixed network, quite apart from the fact that obviously no operator will be so stupid as to invest in the modernisation of a network with which it has to subsidise its competitors.

And then there is the added problem of providing protection against tapping. If 20 or more competitors are allowed to hang around in the roughly 50 exchanges belonging to the former incumbent in my small country, then we can bid farewell to confidential telephone calls and security in these exchanges.

I, too, am in favour of liberalisation in the interests of consumers. But if liberalisation permits excesses of the kind which I have just described – which ought in fact to be of interest to Mr Monti, the Competition Commissioner – then I will not go along with it any longer and that is why I voted against this report.

  Markov (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (DE) The liberalisation of telecoms is already very far advanced in the countries of the EU. Now a further part of the network infrastructure is under discussion: the connection of market entrants and customers to the data transmission network. This is the next logical step in the deregulation policy hitherto. But, precisely because we are dealing with the local loop, customers' interests need to be taken into particular account.

Liberalisation of the local loop is actually, of course, about getting the high-speed Internet of the future off the ground (high transmission speeds and low local telephone charges are decisive for this). This being the case, a "basic supply" must also be guaranteed in this sector to all members of the public by extending the companies' Universal Service Obligations. For example, included in the Universal Service Obligation could be "normal Internet connection" by 2002 and a high-speed Internet connection by 2005, with minimum requirements for quality of service, consumer protection and content on offer and special tariffs for particular groups of society (the disabled, those receiving benefit or on a low income, those who live in outlying regions, and so on).

Since this is not guaranteed in this report, I voted against it.

- Jové Peres Report (A5-0273/2000)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, in this case, too, it was with deep regret that I had to vote against. Why was it, especially in my capacity of representative of the Pensioners’ Party that I voted against? It was because for some time now the tables of my elderly friends have been devoid of tomatoes, peaches, pears, oranges, lemons, grapefruit and so forth. The Mediterranean diet, so well-known in Italy, is disappearing. Why? Because the European Union is incapable of promoting the development of the cultivation and marketing of fruit. It is my belief that we must totally change our quota system and at last resolve to provide aid to any farmer who wants to increase their agricultural output.

  Blak, Lund and Thorning-Schmidt (PSE), in writing. – (DA) The Danish Social Democrats have voted against a report that would remove the subsidies paid to the producers of processed fruit and vegetables. Instead, we support the Commission’s proposal that would rescind onerous administrative procedures and make the schemes simpler and more flexible. The Commission has actually been friendly towards the producers. It has proposed a minor restriction on the great ‘help yourself’ buffet table that the scheme has been to date. We therefore support the Commission’s efforts at reform and oppose further preferential treatment of this sector.

  Korakas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) On the pretext of resolving a number of questions relating to fruit and vegetables, the Commission is proposing serious amendments to the regulations in question, even before the report has been finalised on the results of the previous regulations, which entered into force as recently as 1997. The Commission’s argument that these amendments regulate individual matters is completely hypocritical and misleading, given that the proposed amendments change the entire Common Organisation of the Market in processed fruit and vegetables, making it much worse for small and medium-sized farmers and much better for the trade and industry and the multinationals.

With processed tomatoes and peaches, it is using direct aid to producers as an excuse to propose abolishing the minimum price. This price may not provide satisfactory protection for producers, but it is nonetheless a minimum safety valve. Instead of proposing to enhance it and hence provide an efficient guaranteed agricultural income, the Commission is proposing to abolish it, leaving trade and industry free to step up their exploitation of farmers and trample on the fruits of their labours.

In addition, instead of proposing a substantial increase in quotas, the Commission is proposing to replace them with a system of thresholds so that, with subsidies rendered worthless by joint liability fines, farmers will be lured into producing quantities in excess of the thresholds, which the trade and industry will take as and when they please. Obviously, the quantities in excess of the thresholds produced by farmers will not have a ready market or a minimum price and will become another weapon in the hands of the trade and industry, which will blackmail farmers and set the price for the whole quantity, even the quantity below the threshold, at ridiculously low prices. The quotas and the thresholds are like Scylla and Charybdis and to change them is to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.

Add the unacceptably low national thresholds which decimate subsidies to the proposed reductions in withdrawals to 5% for citrus fruits, 8.5% for apples and pears and 10% for other fruit and vegetables in marketable quantities, and it soon becomes clear that there will be no way of disposing of very large quantities of processable fruits and vegetables with the result that overall prices will drop and the crops will be left to rot in the fields and in the cooperative packaging shops, forcing farmers to uproot their crops.

Finally, the Commission has lost no time in taking advantage of cyclical increases in international prices for processed fruit and vegetables during the last marketing year to set subsidies at low levels, subsidies which will apply for several years, i.e. until the next time the regulation is amended.

The proposals for fruit and vegetables are part of the more general, anti-farming direction which the EU is taking, now that it has decided to persecute farmers. This persecution hits the produce of small and medium-sized farmers in the south particularly hard. What we need are not attempts to improve on disastrous proposals, as Parliament's report endeavours to do. We need to reject these proposals wholesale and without equivocation and to call firmly for agricultural policy to be revised for the benefit of the farmers and the countryside.

  Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) In a bid to safeguard industrial peace in urban areas, the price of the food package has been kept artificially low for dozens of years now. The only way farms could survive was to scale-up and undergo mechanisation. That made them heavily dependent on loans. There is a lot of money about in the agricultural sector these days, but that does not appear to be a guarantee for a good income or safeguard the future of the business. My colleague Mr Salvador Jové is only too aware of the bad position which southern European small farmers and farm labourers find themselves in. Within the existing structure of extensive agricultural subsidies, he is looking for a majority to reach a compromise which will do more to safeguard the chances of survival of this group of farmers. I support his view, as long as this results in income support for those on incomes which are too low. If I were to have my way, I would invest less funds in agriculture but within this sector, give more to the poorest. This line of thinking is at odds with the idea that Europe should collect more taxpayers’ money to subsidise the richest and most profitable businesses. The growing Dutch glasshouse horticulture, which yields a large volume of vegetables, fruit and flowers in a small space, is in a much stronger position than cereal or dairy farms. Since it appears from Appendix III that glasshouse horticulture does not benefit from the proposed subsidy scheme for vegetables and fruit, I am putting my objections on hold for the time being.

  Queiró (UEN), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because it lives up to the expectations of Portuguese organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector, which have called for a drastic overhaul of the COM in processed fruit and vegetables, which they consider to be extremely damaging to our national interests. The loss of 7% of the tomato quota this year and the risk of losing more than 10% of the remaining quota next year have made a revision of this COM before the end of the year crucial for Portuguese farming.

The present report puts forward amendments on a range of points that address the interests of European production in general and of Portuguese production in particular. These are: the inflexibility of the current system for processed tomato-based products, the quantity levels guaranteed for processed tomato, pear and citrus-based products, the complexity of the operational fund system and the management of export refunds.

It is now absolutely vital for the Portuguese Government not to give in and for it to staunchly defend its specific national interests on each of these points. Indeed, it would be quite grotesque and humiliating if the European Parliament’s stance were firmer and more beneficial to Portuguese interests than our own government's!

- Nicholson Report (A-0276/2000)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, it is a well-known fact that I am highly responsive to all measures concerning the harvesting of various species of fish, measures which by enlarging the holes in fishing nets allow smaller fish to survive, live longer, grow old and potentially become pensioners too. However, this is only one of the reasons why I did not vote against this measure. Why? I abstained because I feel that in this case, as Mr Bushill-Matthews and the English Members have said, there has been a lack of subsidiarity. This is a fishing issue that concerns the British, the Belgians, the French and the Irish. I fail to see why they cannot be left to reach a decision on their own concerning their fish and their fishing.

- Cushnahan Report (A5-0284/2000)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, among my many elderly friends in Italy and elsewhere there is one Chinese man. This pensioner, who lives in Hong Kong and to whom I read Mr Cushnahan’s report said that it was a wonderful report which covered everything, but failed to say anything about the situation of the elderly in the special administrative region of Hong Kong. It is for this reason that despite having approved this document, I wanted to emphasise in the explanations of vote that next time it would be a good idea to survey and take into consideration the situation in which pensioners in Hong Kong find themselves compared with pensioners in the Peoples’ Republic of China, in order to see whether this reunification has been advantageous or detrimental to them.

- Johan Van Hecke Report (A5-0296/2000)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, it is very important for the European Union to concern itself with the inhabitants of ACP – African, Caribbean and Pacific – States. Personally, as the representative of the Pensioners Party, I am concerned at the situation of the elderly in these countries. I have to say that despite approving of the contents of the explanatory statement on page 20, and thus of the need for initiatives for programmes concerning education, poverty alleviation and the capacity-building of democratic institutions, the proposal unfortunately makes no reference to this point. I believe that we can only help these states if we improve the conditions in which all their inhabitants live, be they young people, workers or members of a group very close to my heart, the elderly people and pensioners who live in the ACP States.

  Andersson, Färm, Hedkvist Petersen, Hulthén, Hans Karlsson and Theorin (PSE), in writing. – (SV) It is extraordinary that the EU is reviewing its cooperation with the ACP countries involved in armed conflicts.

It is important to ensure that aid funds are not used for military purposes. However, the Member States must have the opportunity to provide support for building up democracy in dictatorships, both bilaterally and through the Commission. It must be possible to provide education in good administration in order to counter corruption and, in the same way, to support opposition parties. We cannot therefore support Paragraph 4, which states that aid can only be granted on condition that the country in question has a good administration and respects human rights and the principles of the constitutional State.

- Moratorium on the death penalty (B5-0804/2000)

  Caudron (PSE), in writing. – (FR) My position on the death penalty today is exactly the same as it was in 1981 when François Mitterand courageously declared his opposition to it while standing for president and then abolished it once he was elected.

I was already against it back in 1981. I am certainly still against it in 2000.

While I can certainly understand the feelings and reactions of the families of victims of what are often appalling crimes, a government cannot answer barbarity with barbarity. It has no right to do so.

Besides, we know the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is quite unacceptable for countries claiming to be civilised (like the United States) to continue applying it in a wholesale and systematic manner, running an immense risk of making irreparable legal mistakes.

That is why I have voted in favour of the call for a moratorium.

- Moreira Da Silva Report (A5-0270/2000)

  Alyssandrakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The problem of global warming caused by concentrations of gases in the atmosphere which exacerbate the greenhouse effect, such as carbon dioxide, is taking on explosive proportions. It is only three years since the Kyoto Conference and the European Environmental Agency estimates that, if emissions in the EU continue at present rates, instead of an 8% reduction in emissions of CO2 between 1990-2010, there will be a 6% increase, while in the USA the outlook is even worse.

The root of the problem lies in the fact that everything, including the quality of the environment and the climate, is sacrificed to capitalist exploitation of wealth-producing resources and excessive profit. Consequently, what could be more natural than calling for those who caused the problem to pay to resolve it?

The Commission communication should have been entitled differently, given that it contains no specific policies or measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases; on the contrary, it confines itself, as the rapporteur rightly comments, to merely producing an organisation chart and a vague list of common policies and measures. It restates the position that energy taxation or a tax on fossil fuels are the mainstay of the EU strategy to reduce greenhouse gases. We disagree with this measure because, whichever way you look at it, the ‘polluter pays’ principle is a hypocritical principle and its distorted application will ensure that the entire cost of reducing emissions is passed on directly to consumers, i.e. to the workers. Given the tremendous pressure to find a solution, one might well discuss the imposition of an energy tax on fossil fuels, but only as a measure to complement an integrated policy of measures to reduce CO2 emissions and on the strict condition that the revenue from this tax is used solely to relieve the burden on workers.

We stand by the view that the cost of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be paid for by the real polluters (i.e. large-scale industry) out of their excess profits. We also agree with the rapporteur’s view that clear priority should be given to renewable energy sources and to giving support to public transport.

We are also totally opposed to the immoral and inefficient system of emission trading between companies and countries. We fail to understand how it is possible to create an entire market which trades in pollution as a commodity and on which, instead of reducing their own CO2 emissions, some companies buy in surplus coverage from other companies which are within their limits. Of course, in a capitalist system in which everything can be bought and sold, this is bound to happen.

Although opposed to the Commission communication, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece appreciate the rapporteur’s positive comments, which is why we opted to abstain rather than vote against the report.

  Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) Global warming and extreme weather conditions are increasingly caused by industry, agriculture and transport. Despite this, the governments of the richest countries with the highest emission levels of fossil combustion products have failed to bring about a drastic reduction in these emission levels. The rapporteur is right to point out that the European Commission’s original proposal is inadequate. Kyoto’s guiding principle was that the rich countries would keep their own atmosphere clean, although they were allowed, up to a point, to add the emission which they were helping reduce elsewhere to their own table of results. The Member States themselves will need to drastically reduce their emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases by focusing on renewable energy, public transport and reducing traffic levels. The boom in the cheap transport of goods by road mainly leads to the polluting industry being relocated from the richer to the poorer countries. Nuclear energy is not an alternative because that too adds to global warming, emits greenhouse gases and leaves other waste products behind which hardly degrade. I fear that the forthcoming climate conference will be exploited as an opportunity to moderate the previously agreed commitment to reduce emission levels by 5.2% in the rich countries. The trading of emission rights may be interesting as an experiment, but it is not a viable solution.

- Moreira Da Silva Report (A5-0271/2000)

  Bordes (GUE/NGL). – (FR) We are in favour of any tax or levy on the big industrial companies that are largely responsible for pollution in general, and atmospheric pollution in particular. However, we have abstained, not just because of the derisory nature of the tax envisaged, but primarily because of all the loopholes, which are likely to turn this tax into a modest subscription granting the right to pollute.

Genuine prevention of pollution calls for restrictive measures as far-reaching as confiscation of a polluting company, which no company can wriggle out of. But beyond immediate measures, atmospheric pollution is a world problem which concerns the whole of human society. It can only be dealt with satisfactorily by a society which has control of its economy and is not solely driven by thirst for private profit.

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) I am very keen to present my explanation of vote on this report, an explanation of what was in fact a vote in favour, because I would like to ask you, Madam President, in much the same way as I am asking myself, whether we are entirely sure that the climate changes that we are seeing have been caused by man, by industrialisation and by the emission of substances into the atmosphere. One or two millennia ago, when industry did not exist, were there not earthquakes, torrential rain and other assorted disasters? When, Madam President, was the great flood? How much industry and how many cars were there then? I would therefore like to us to consider whether these climate changes really can be laid at the door of industry and the way we live today.

  Caudron (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The fact that Parliament is dealing with the causes of climate change on our planet is important.

This really is a serious issue in the very short term, and it concerns all of us, both because we all breathe the same air, and because of the storms, excessive rainfall and water shortages affecting every continent to a varying degree.

The developed countries doing the polluting and the less developed or underdeveloped countries about to do so must be made aware of the situation.

So anything that can raise public awareness is useful and a step in the right direction.

That is why our resolution is important, and I have voted for it.

  Vachetta (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The fight against the greenhouse effect is a major challenge for the industrialised countries and constitutes a specific duty in respect of the peoples of the developing world who are already paying for the consequences of global warming. Accepting the establishment of a market in carbon dioxide emissions at international level amounts to letting western countries duck their responsibilities by purchasing fictitious Russian emission rights or financing projects in southern countries that are completely inconsistent with their development needs, without any means of checking actual reductions in emissions. Pollution is not merchandise. If it becomes a source of profit, the door will be opened to every abuse.

The draft resolution proposes to ratify the establishment of such a system, when ‘the technical and legal aspects have not yet been investigated’ and ‘the functioning and effectiveness of the system must be tested’. No controls or sanctions are proposed. Moreover the development of nuclear energy and carbon sinks must be excluded from the calculations for the reduction of emissions.

If the European Union is to respect its commitments it must adopt an ambitious European programme for combating the greenhouse effect without delay – and on a completely different scale from the motion for a resolution in terms of policies and measures. In particular, action in the transport sector must be taken into account.

- Lund Report (A5-0197/2000)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, I have to say that I abstained from the vote on Mr Lund’s report. I abstained because I noted that in this report, just like many others, insufficient attention is paid, and an inadequate commitment made, to research. Such is the case with this report, which aims to combat endocrine disorders. In my home city of Bergamo, many people are suffering from a thyroid disorder the cause of which is still unknown. This money should be spent by bringing into line and coordinating expenditure on research policy in all the 15 Member States of the European Union. We have to tighten the purse strings and only spend what is necessary.

  Blokland (EDD), in writing. – (NL) In summary, the resolution on endocrine disrupters adopted a moment ago illustrates that far too little is known about the harmful effects, that the European Parliament would like to see more research done and that measures need to be taken on the basis of the precautionary principle. Although I have voted for the resolution, I would like to make a few minor observations.

I share the rapporteur’s opinion that the arguments in this discussion must be based on fact. However, I do not share his view that the measures need to reflect the concern among the public. The average citizen will in most cases be unable to make an adequate risk assessment.

In modern society, with all its consumer goods, such as appliances, we need materials and substances with very specific characteristics. Everyone, or nearly everyone, accepts and uses these products. The substances and materials in these products, however, do carry a risk. As everyone knows, life is full of risks and uncertainties. The trick is to deal with these risks and uncertainties in a judicious manner.

Science has still not proven beyond reasonable doubt that there is a direct link between these chemical substances and changes in human hormone levels. That does not detract from the fact that I am delighted with the interest in this topic. The possible effects of these substances are not insignificant. If these chemical substances really cause an increase in certain types of cancer, reduce fertility or threaten unborn life, something has to be done about it. Human life is worth protecting. Out of precautionary considerations, it is useful to be clear about these substances. Pursuant to the precautionary principle, the possible harmfulness of dangerous substances, materials and products should be given scientific substance. Both restriction and acceptance of a certain risk are important in this context.

I do not much like the idea of simply banning substances in a bid to rule out every possible risk. This opens us up to the risk of a witch hunt being unleashed on all kinds of substances without any scientific basis. The reversal of the burden of proof is not appropriate either. To apply the precautionary principle correctly, we also need to know what the harmful effects are of any of the alternatives.

  Korakas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Generally speaking, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece agree with the main elements which need to be included in the sixth research programme because all the original objectives, such as setting up committees, developing tests, improving monitoring of endocrine disrupters (ED) in the environment etc., are steps in the right direction.

However, we should like to highlight the need for a generally acceptable definition of endocrine disrupters, which we feel should include the effects of radiation (accidents, radioactive waste from peaceful or military applications, without impediment and without restricting the access of official scientific teams to industrial uses). There can, for example, be no doubt that the effects of radiation cause cancer of the thyroid, as in the case of the depleted uranium bombs used in Yugoslavia.

We also need to define a more specific framework for research, standardising tests and cooperation between various scientific teams so that reliable results can be achieved. We also need to safeguard and strengthen efforts to identify substances which are suspected of being endocrine disrupters, perhaps within a legislative framework.

Awareness-raising campaigns directed at the public, at consumers and at people in professions which are at risk of exposure to endocrine disrupters (farmers, industrial and other workers) must be a basic concern if these efforts are to be a success. Similarly, we need to activate the principle of prevention contained in Article 130Ρ of the EU Treaty (in order to control and withdraw known or suspected endocrine disrupters and develop alternative harmless substances).

  Vachetta (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Adopting a resolution on a Community strategy on endocrine disrupters is the minimum we should do on a complex subject for which no regulation exists. Listing and studying the phenomenon of disruption of the endocrine systems of men and animals, validating the studies, and demonstrating the causal links between certain products and certain anomalies found in humans and animals (decline in fertility, certain malformations, certain cancers), is a necessary point of departure as long as it respects the precautionary principle and at the same time promotes a need for transparency totally absent from the text.

The fact is that private and public decision-makers will not act unless obliged to do so by public opinion. The lists of products suspected of being endocrine disrupters must be made known to the public and health professionals, as and when new ones are discovered.

While studies must be conducted to find out about the dangers of endocrine disrupters, firms using suspect products must also be made subject to regulations applicable to drugs, especially in terms of furnishing proof that these products are harmless, whenever they are considered suspect by the European groups of experts.

So an arsenal of restrictive regulations is urgently needed to make it possible to ban such products in the years ahead.

  President. – That concludes voting time.

(1) Tabled by Mr Nisticò and others, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mrs Napoletano and others, on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, Mr Caveri, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, Mrs Frassoni and others, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, and Mrs Muscardini, on behalf of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group, to replace resolutions B5-0807, 0810, 0819, 0820 and 0821/2000 with a new text.