Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Friday 17 December 1999 , and I would like once again to wish you a happy new year in the hope that you enjoyed a pleasant festive period .
Although , as you will have seen , the dreaded ' millennium bug ' failed to materialise , still the people in a number of countries suffered a series of natural disasters that truly were dreadful .
You have requested a debate on this subject in the course of the next few days , during this part-session .
In the meantime , I should like to observe a minute ' s silence , as a number of Members have requested , on behalf of all the victims concerned , particularly those of the terrible storms , in the various countries of the European Union .
Please rise , then , for this minute ' s silence .
( The House rose and observed a minute ' s silence )
Madam President , on a point of order .
You will be aware from the press and television that there have been a number of bomb explosions and killings in Sri Lanka .
One of the people assassinated very recently in Sri Lanka was Mr Kumar Ponnambalam , who had visited the European Parliament just a few months ago .
Would it be appropriate for you , Madam President , to write a letter to the Sri Lankan President expressing Parliament 's regret at his and the other violent deaths in Sri Lanka and urging her to do everything she possibly can to seek a peaceful reconciliation to a very difficult situation ?
Yes , Mr Evans , I feel an initiative of the type you have just suggested would be entirely appropriate .
If the House agrees , I shall do as Mr Evans has suggested .
Madam President , on a point of order .
I would like your advice about Rule 143 concerning inadmissibility .
My question relates to something that will come up on Thursday and which I will then raise again .
The Cunha report on multiannual guidance programmes comes before Parliament on Thursday and contains a proposal in paragraph 6 that a form of quota penalties should be introduced for countries which fail to meet their fleet reduction targets annually .
It says that this should be done despite the principle of relative stability .
I believe that the principle of relative stability is a fundamental legal principle of the common fisheries policy and a proposal to subvert it would be legally inadmissible .
I want to know whether one can raise an objection of that kind to what is merely a report , not a legislative proposal , and whether that is something I can competently do on Thursday .
That is precisely the time when you may , if you wish , raise this question , i.e. on Thursday prior to the start of the presentation of the report .

Madam President , coinciding with this year ' s first part-session of the European Parliament , a date has been set , unfortunately for next Thursday , in Texas in America , for the execution of a young 34 year-old man who has been sentenced to death . We shall call him Mr Hicks .
At the request of a French Member , Mr Zimeray , a petition has already been presented , which many people signed , including myself .
However , I would ask you , in accordance with the line which is now constantly followed by the European Parliament and by the whole of the European Community , to make representations , using the weight of your prestigious office and the institution you represent , to the President and to the Governor of Texas , Mr Bush , who has the power to order a stay of execution and to reprieve the condemned person .
This is all in accordance with the principles that we have always upheld .
Thank you , Mr Segni , I shall do so gladly .
Indeed , it is quite in keeping with the positions this House has always adopted .
Madam President , I should like to draw your attention to a case in which this Parliament has consistently shown an interest .
It is the case of Alexander Nikitin .
All of us here are pleased that the courts have acquitted him and made it clear that in Russia , too , access to environmental information is a constitutional right .
Now , however , he is to go before the courts once more because the public prosecutor is appealing .
We know , and we have stated as much in very many resolutions indeed , including specifically during the last plenary part-session of last year , that this is not solely a legal case and that it is wrong for Alexander Nikitin to be accused of criminal activity and treason because of our involvement as the beneficiaries of his findings .
These findings form the basis of the European programmes to protect the Barents Sea , and that is why I would ask you to examine a draft letter setting out the most important facts and to make Parliament 's position , as expressed in the resolutions which it has adopted , clear as far as Russia is concerned .
Yes , Mrs Schroedter , I shall be pleased to look into the facts of this case when I have received your letter .
Madam President , I would firstly like to compliment you on the fact that you have kept your word and that , during this first part-session of the new year , the number of television channels in our offices has indeed increased considerably .
But , Madam President , my personal request has not been met .
Although there are now two Finnish channels and one Portuguese one , there is still no Dutch channel , which is what I had requested because Dutch people here like to be able to follow the news too when we are sent to this place of exile every month .
I would therefore once more ask you to ensure that we get a Dutch channel as well .
Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel , I can tell you that this matter is on the agenda for the Quaestors ' meeting on Wednesday .
It will , I hope , be examined in a positive light .
Madam President , can you tell me why this Parliament does not adhere to the health and safety legislation that it actually passes ?
Why has no air quality test been done on this particular building since we were elected ?
Why has there been no Health and Safety Committee meeting since 1998 ?
Why has there been no fire drill , either in the Brussels Parliament buildings or the Strasbourg Parliament buildings ?
Why are there no fire instructions ?
Why have the staircases not been improved since my accident ?
Why are no-smoking areas not enforced ?
It seems absolutely disgraceful that we pass legislation and do not adhere to it ourselves .
Mrs Lynne , you are quite right and I shall check whether this has actually not been done .
I shall also refer the matter to the College of Quaestors , and I am certain that they will be keen to ensure that we comply with the regulations we ourselves vote on .
Madam President , Mrs D?ez Gonz?lez and I had tabled questions on certain opinions of the Vice-President , Mrs de Palacio , which appeared in a Spanish newspaper .
The competent services have not included them in the agenda on the grounds that they had been answered in a previous part-session .
I would ask that they reconsider , since this is not the case .
The questions answered previously referred to Mrs de Palacio ' s intervention , on another occasion , and not to these comments which appeared in the ABC newspaper on 18 November .
Mr Berenguer Fuster , we shall check all this .
I admit that , at present , the matter seems to be somewhat confused .
We shall therefore look into it properly to ensure that everything is as it should be .
Madam President , I should like to know if there will be a clear message going out from Parliament this week about our discontent over today 's decision refusing to renew the arms embargo on Indonesia , considering that the vast majority in this Parliament have endorsed the arms embargo in Indonesia in the past ?
Today 's decision not to renew the embargo is extremely dangerous considering the situation there .
So Parliament should send a message , since that is the wish of the vast majority .
It is irresponsible of EU Member States to refuse to renew the embargo .
As people have said , the situation there is extremely volatile .
There is , in fact , a risk of a military coup in the future .
We do not know what is happening .
So why should EU arms producers profit at the expense of innocent people ?
In any event , this question is not presently included among the requests for topical and urgent debate on Thursday .
Agenda
The next item is the verification of the final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 13 January pursuant to Rule 110 of the Rules of Procedure .
No amendments have been proposed relating to Monday and Tuesday .
Relating to Wednesday :
The Group of the Party of European Socialists requests that a Commission statement be included on its strategic objectives for the next five years and on the administrative reform of the Commission .
I would like Mr Bar?n Crespo , who made the request , to speak to propose it . That is , if he so wishes , of course .
Then we shall follow the usual procedure , hearing one speaker in favour and one against .
Madam President , the presentation of the Prodi Commission ' s political programme for the whole legislature was initially a proposal by the Group of the Party of European Socialists which was unanimously approved by the Conference of Presidents in September and which was also explicitly accepted by President Prodi , who reiterated his commitment in his inaugural speech .
This commitment is important because the Commission is a body with a monopoly of initiative in accordance with the Treaties and , therefore , basically dictates this Parliament ' s political and legislative activity for the next five years .
I would also like to point out , Madam President , that this Parliament voted to express its confidence in President Prodi during the previous legislature . It did so again during this legislature , in July , and then , in September , it voted once more to approve the whole Commission .
There has therefore been enough time for the Commission to prepare its programme and for us to become familiar with it and explain it to our citizens .
To this end , I would like to remind you of the resolution of 15 September , which recommended that the proposal be presented as soon as possible .
The events of last week - which originated outside the Conference of Presidents , that Conference being used simply to corroborate and ratify decisions taken elsewhere - present us with a dilemma . Either the Commission is not ready to present this programme , in which case it should clarify it .
According to its President , it is in a position to do so .
Given that the Commission is represented by Vice-President de Palacio , I believe that , before voting , it would help if the Commission could let us know how ready it is to present this programme , as agreed . Alternatively , Parliament is not ready to examine this programme , as some appear to be suggesting .
In my opinion , this second hypothesis would imply the failure of Parliament in its duty as a Parliament , as well as introducing an original thesis , an unknown method which consists of making political groups aware , in writing , of a speech concerning the Commission ' s programme a week earlier - and not a day earlier , as had been agreed - bearing in mind that the legislative programme will be discussed in February , so we could forego the debate , since on the next day our citizens will hear about it in the press and on the Internet and Parliament will no longer have to worry about it .
My Group believes that since a parliament is meant to listen , debate and reflect , there can be no justification whatsoever for this delay and we believe that , if the Commission is ready to do so , we still have time to re-establish the original agreement between Parliament and the Commission and proceed in a manner which fulfils our duty to our fellow citizens .
Therefore , the proposal of the Group of the Party of European Socialists , and which you have mentioned , is that the Prodi Commission present its legislative programme on Wednesday , including its proposed administrative reform , because , otherwise , we could find ourselves in a paradoxical situation : on the pretext that there is no text , on the one hand , the President of the Commission would be denied his right to speak in this Parliament and , on the other hand , there would be a debate on a reform when Parliament had no prior knowledge of the texts on which it is based .
Therefore , Madam President , I would ask you to request that the Commission express its opinion on this issue and that we then proceed to the vote .
( Applause from the PSE Group )
Madam President , I really am quite astonished at Mr Bar?n Crespo ' s behaviour and the fact that he is now asking for this item to be put on Wednesday 's agenda .
Mr Bar?n Crespo , you were unable to attend the Conference of Presidents last Thursday .
I am not criticising this ; it happens from time to time that people send someone to represent them .
Mr H?nsch represented you on this occasion .
In the Conference of Presidents , we had an in-depth discussion .
Your Group was alone in advocating what you are saying now .
We then put it to a vote .
As you know , each chairman has the same number of votes as his Group has Members .
There was a vote on this matter .
As I recall , the outcome of this vote was 422 votes to 180 with a few abstentions .
This means that all the Groups with the exception of the non-attached Members - but , of course , they are not a Group - were in agreement ; only your Group thought that we should proceed as you have proposed here .
All of the others were of a different opinion .
That was the decision .
I should now like to comment on the issue itself .
We have confidence in the Commission and in Romano Prodi and , after a difficult procedure , as everyone knows , the vast majority of our Group supported the vote of confidence in Romano Prodi and the Commission .
We believe , however , that the Commission 's strategic plan needs to be debated within a proper procedural framework , not only on the basis of an oral statement here in the European Parliament , but also on the basis of a document which is adopted in the Commission and which describes this programme over the five-year period .
There is no such document !
The Commission will present its programme for the year 2000 in February .
We have said , very well , if the Commission does not wish to introduce the 2000 programme as early as January then we will do it in February .
We have agreed to this .
After all , we do not wish to quarrel with the Commission ; if at all possible , we believe that the Commission and Parliament need to tread the same path .
However , we in Parliament also have a supervisory role with regard to the Commission and we do not have to agree with everything which comes out of the Commission .
I should like us to be able to do a reasonable amount of preparation for the debate on the five-year programme in our Groups .
You cannot prepare if you hear a statement in this House and have no idea of its content .
That is why we would recommend - and it is my impression that the Commission is also open to this idea - that we hold the debate on the Commission 's long-term programme up to the year 2005 in February - and I hope that the Commission will agree on a programme before then which it will propose to us - and that , at the same time , in February we also hold the debate on the Commission 's legislative programme for the year 2000 .
The fact that the subjects are connected also suggests that we should hold the debate on both programmes together .
That is why my Group firmly rejects the proposal made by the Socialist Group .
( Applause from the PPE-DE Group )
I propose that we vote on the request of the Group of the Party of European Socialists that the Commission statement on its strategic objectives should be reinstated .
( Parliament rejected the request ) President .
Still on the subject of Wednesday ' s sitting , I have another proposal regarding the oral question on capital tax .
The PPE-DE Group is requesting that this item be taken off the agenda .
Is there a member who wishes to speak on behalf of this Group to propose this ?
Madam President , I can hear a ripple of laughter from the Socialists . I was told that large sections of the Socialist Group were also keen to have this item taken off the agenda , because at the vote in the Conference of Presidents no vote was received from the working group of Members of the Socialist Group responsible for this matter .
I do not know whether this information is correct , but the PPE-DE Group would , in any case , be grateful if this item were removed because Parliament has addressed this issue several times already .
Decisions have also been adopted against a tax of this kind .
That is why my Group moves that this item be taken off the agenda .
Thank you , Mr Poettering .
We shall now hear Mr Wurtz speaking against this request .
Madam President , I would firstly like to point out Mr Poettering ' s lack of logic .
He has just been preaching to the Group of the Party of European Socialists because they went back on a decision taken in a perfectly clear manner at the Conference of Presidents , and now he is doing just the same .
We discussed that matter and we were unanimous , with the exception of the PPE and ELDR Groups .
As my fellow chairmen will recall , I even mentioned that it was not a matter of knowing whether one was for or against the Tobin tax , but of whether one dared to hear what the Commission and the Council thought of it .
It is not a lot to ask .
I therefore repeat the proposal that this oral question to the Commission and the Council should be retained so that we can find out , once and for all , the positions of these two bodies regarding the proposal which is relatively modest but which would give a clear message to public opinion , particularly after the tide of feeling generated by the failure of the Seattle Conference .
We shall proceed to vote on the PPE-DE Group ' s request that the oral question regarding the capital tax be withdrawn from the agenda .
( Parliament rejected the request , with 164 votes for , 166 votes against and 7 abstentions )
Madam President , I would like to thank Mr Poettering for advertising this debate .
Thank you very much .
Madam President , has my vote been counted ?
I was unable to vote electronically , since I do not have a card .
My vote was " in favour " .
Indeed , if we add the two Members who have declared themselves , then the result of the vote would be ....
Madam President , the Presidency has already declared the result of the vote .
There is no room for amendments .
Madam President , in the earlier vote - and I will abide by your ruling on this matter - on the question of the strategic plan of the Commission I indicated that I would like to speak in advance of the vote on behalf of my Group .
That did not happen .
I would appreciate it if , on the close of this item of business , I might be allowed to give an explanation of vote on behalf of my Group .
This is an important matter .
It would be useful for the record of the House to state how people perceive what we have just done in the light of their own political analysis .
Madam President , I do not wish to reopen the debate , but I had also asked for the floor , to comment on Mr Bar?n Crespo 's motion .
You did not call me either .
I regret this , but the vote has already been taken and the decision is made so let us leave the matter there .
I am terribly sorry , Mr H?nsch and Mr Cox .
I did not see you asking to speak .
Even so , I think the positions are quite clear and they shall be entered in the Minutes .
When we adopt the Minutes for today ' s sitting tomorrow , then any Members who think the positions have not been explained clearly enough may ask for amendments .
This seems to me to be a workable solution .
Of course , the Minutes for tomorrow ' s sitting will take into account any additional explanations .
I think this is a better solution than proceeding now to extremely time-consuming explanations of votes .
Mr Cox , Mr H?nsch , would this be acceptable to you ?
Madam President , if the vote records correctly how my Group voted I shall not , and cannot , object to that .
If your ruling is that I cannot give an explanation of vote , I accept that but with reservations .
We shall pay particular attention to the wording of the Minutes , as we always do , of course .
If they do not properly reflect the positions adopted , then we may correct them , if necessary .
( The order of business was adopted thus amended )
Safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods
The next item is the report ( A5-0105 / 1999 ) by Mr Koch , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the harmonisation of examination requirements for safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road , rail or inland waterways ( C5-0208 / 1999 - 1998 / 0106 ( COD ) ) .
Commissioner , Madam President , ladies and gentlemen , I can be quite frank in saying that I welcome the Council 's common position on harmonising the training of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road , rail or inland waterway .
Firstly , we needed to take action on a formal level in order to meet the requirements of Directive 96 / 35 / EC , which obliges the Member States to appoint safety advisers and to organise the training , instruction and examination of these people but does not explain this explicitly .
Secondly , by adopting this directive we achieve a ) an increase in safety when dangerous goods are both transported and transhipped ; b ) a reduction in distortions of competition resulting from wide variations in national training structures and training costs and c ) equal opportunities for safety advisers on the European labour market .
Thirdly , this directive , as it currently stands in the common position , guarantees - in particular because it confines itself exclusively to minimum standards - a high degree of flexibility and modest regulation by the European Union ; by adopting it we contribute to the Member States ' bearing a high level of individual responsibility .
All of this is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and is therefore to be greatly welcomed .
Our amendments from the first reading have , I believe , been taken into account very satisfactorily .
They have either been accepted or transposed with no change in the substance , or they have been rejected because the corresponding European arrangements have not been included , for example a system of penalties for violations of the rules or a complex classification structure for related groups of questions .
The one unanimously adopted amendment of the Committee on Regional Policy and Transport , which concerns the timetable for implementing the directive , is something which I would urge you to support .
By not setting a specific date for the Member States to implement the directive and instead giving them a period of three months after its entry into force , we are introducing a flexibility clause which ensures that the directive will be implemented without delay .
I would urge you to endorse this .
Madam President , we cannot and must not accept the fact that we hear ever more frequently of accidents causing major damage on our roads , but also on our railways and waterways , not solely but at least partly because those involved do not take the transport of dangerous goods seriously enough or because - as a result of ignorance or a lack of training on the part of the drivers or others responsible for the various vehicles - a minor accident has all too often become a major disaster .
As an Austrian , I still have a vivid memory , as , I believe , we all do , of the catastrophe which cost so many human lives last year in the Tauern Tunnel , where subsequent work to rebuild the parts of the tunnel which had been destroyed in this fire continued for many months at huge expense .
The renovation project , which lasted for months , cut off this important route between the north and south of Europe .
The traffic which had to be diverted because of this stretched the patience of many thousands of people in the EU to the limit .
In fact , all hell broke loose in some municipalities in my province .
Prevention has to be our answer to disasters of this kind and this draft directive is an important step towards well-trained safety advisers being available , so that the right action is taken in good time .
All the same , we must not content ourselves with enacting European law to ensure greater safety .
We also need to follow this up and make sure that our rules are transposed by the Member States in good time and - even more importantly - we need to ensure that they are also applied afterwards .
Please let this not be yet another sector where we subsequently have to lament the lack of enforcement .
I should like to address one final point . We must not content ourselves with sealing another hole in the safety net and shutting our eyes to the fact that , where transport safety in Europe is concerned , there is still much more to be done .
In this context , I should like to make a request and ask the Commissioner responsible , who is with us here today , to table an appropriate text as soon as possible with a view to continuing to make it safer for traffic to transit tunnels in the future , so that we in Europe do not have to experience any more such disasters on this scale .
Madam President , first of all I should like to thank Mr Koch for his report which has , at its heart , the issue of transport safety .
The report looks at the issue of harmonising the examination requirements for safety advisors working in the areas of transportation of dangerous goods by road , rail and inland waterway .
I congratulate him on his excellent report .
Transport safety has sadly been in the news recently : the Paddington rail crash in London , the terrible rail crash in Norway , the two aviation crashes involving EU citizens and the natural disaster involving the Erika off Brittany - all within the last four months - remind us that transport safety can never be taken for granted and that those charged with protecting the public must be highly motivated and highly qualified .
The rapporteur has pointed out to the House that in its common position the Council has accepted six of Parliament 's ten amendments put forward at first reading and that the substance of Parliament 's other amendments has been retained .
My Group will therefore support the common position and looks forward to the enactment of the legislation which will provide us with yet another tool in our fight to make transport in the European Union as safe as possible .
When it comes to safety my Group will always support any initiatives to improve transport safety .
We still have a lot of work to do in this area as recent events have proved .
Madam President , I would like to make a few comments .
I would like , first of all , to thank the rapporteur for his exceptionally accurate and technical work on the report and , secondly , the Commission for the proposal it has submitted .
We are concerned here with the harmonisation of examination requirements but also , in fact , with minimum requirements .
This is a pity , in a sense .
Needless to say , safety on roads , railways and inland waterways is of key importance and , given the international nature of these types of transport , training for safety advisors should also be harmonised , therefore , as well as the requirements of the new ADR , for example , which is under way .
This is important , but so is enforcement and there are , of course , a number of reasons why we need to pay particular attention to this .
Just think of the road accidents which have occurred over recent years , for example in Belgium , the Netherlands and a number of other countries where lorries carrying dangerous goods continued to drive in foggy conditions when really they should have pulled off the road instead .
Or ships from Eastern Europe which moor adjacent to ships over here , with all the obvious risks that this entails .
Furthermore , it has transpired that research in the ports in Belgium , Finland , but also in Japan has shown that 50 % of containers with partially dangerous cargo are not delivered correctly for shipment .
In short , the issue is an important one .
If we look at the situation where safety advisers are concerned , in a number of countries it is compulsory to employ such safety advisers in companies as from 1 January of this year .
There will be major problems with enforcing this rule at present , especially with smaller companies , as these cannot afford safety advisors .
These smaller companies either dispose of their cargo or mix it with other cargo , which causes problems .
It is therefore also being requested that ISO 9002 certificates possibly include the finer details of these activities in the form of annual reports and company analyses .
The work is done . All that remains is the business of enforcement .
I would like to mention one final point .
With regard to enforcement , proper agreements must also be concluded with the Eastern European countries because they will not enter into treaties which deal with this matter until 1 July 2001 , that is to say in eighteen months ' time .
This gives them a competitive edge for the interim period .
This is not in itself anything dreadful , but we should prioritise particularly the safety aspects for goods transported by road , rail and inland waterways and incorporate these , as part of the acquis communautaire , as soon as possible and present them to the acceding states .
Madam President , the importance of transport safety is highlighted on a regular basis in this Parliament and rightly so .
The ever increasing volume of goods passing through Europe entails all kinds of risks , known and unknown , for employees and the social environment .
Those having to deal with these risks should therefore meet stringent requirements .
The relevant standards which have been laid down in another Directive , 95 / 35 / EC , seem sufficiently adequate to advise people in a responsible manner on the organisation of the transport of dangerous goods .
I am very pleased that agreement has also been reached with the Council on minimum standards regarding examinations , although I would have preferred it if uniform , set standards and modules had been established , so that certificates would be of equal value internationally .
This , however , does not seem feasible .
Finally , the amendment tabled by the rapporteur is perfectly logical and I can , therefore , give it my wholehearted support .
Mr President , Commissioner , I should first like to congratulate Mr Koch on his reports which , though technical , are nonetheless of very great significance for safety .
I should like to make just a few comments .
Firstly , I should like to ask the Commissioner - and I am convinced that my request will fall on fertile ground - to ensure that more attention is paid to the issue of safety , be it on the roads , on the waterways or at sea .
Considering that it is only today that we are dealing with a Commission proposal first made on 19 March 1998 , even though Parliament responded relatively quickly , this time lag is a little too long .
This is not just the fault of the Commission , but I believe that we need to take action more quickly so as to achieve harmonisation in this area as well .
My second point has already been mentioned : it concerns the minimum standards .
In principle , I believe that in many cases where transport is concerned we should be working towards increased flexibility and country-specific rules .
However , when it comes to safety , I am rather sceptical because safety in Sweden , for example , is in principle no different from safety in Germany , Italy or Austria .
I can live with these minimum standards , but I would ask the Commission to monitor the situation very carefully .
Should flexibility of this kind result in there being inadequate rules in some countries then we should work towards greater harmonisation .
My third point has also been mentioned already .
As you know , like Mr Rack , I come from a transit country , where this issue plays a particularly important role .
We do not want to make the conditions of competition worse for some countries unilaterally and improve them for countries such as Austria or other transit countries .
But I believe that we should do all we can to keep the transport of dangerous goods to a minimum , in all countries , whether they are transit countries or not .
Mr President , I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur , Mr Koch , on his magnificent work and his positive cooperation with the Commission with regard to improving the texts and presenting this report and this proposal ; in the end there is only one amendment on the requirements for the aptitude examination for safety advisers in the transport of dangerous goods by road , rail or inland waterway .
We understand that it is important that the two institutions - Parliament and Commission - cooperate and work together and that the current cooperation with the Committee on Regional Policy , and in particular the transport group , is magnificent .
The common position includes practically all of the amendments accepted by the Commission and harmonises the minimum examination requirements for safety advisers and , at second reading , we can accept the amendment on the proposed date , which is much more realistic than the one originally suggested by the Commission , bearing in mind that we have now spent several years debating this question .
Very briefly , I would like to thank the various Members for their interventions and to tell you that safety is one of the Commission ' s priorities in the field of transport .
As Mr Simpson has said very correctly , this is a process which we can never take for granted or regard as having come to an end .
The process of increasing safety margins and safety guarantees in transport is a process which must be improved day by day .
In this regard , I would also like to refer very briefly to the problems of the tunnels , which Messrs Rack and Swoboda have referred to , which , in the case of Austria , is doubtless a very sensitive issue , and great effort should be made to improve their safety .
In one of the worst accidents to have occurred recently , the goods being transported were not dangerous in themselves .
Margarine and a few kilos of paint which , in principle , do not present risks , led to a genuine disaster .
Therefore , we will have to see how the requirements guaranteeing the maximum degree of safety can be further improved .
Finally , I would like to say that we have to consider safety in all types of transport .
This week we will be holding a debate here on the safety of sea transport , in light of the Erika disaster , and in the course of this year we will have to discuss our objectives in terms of the safety of air transport .
But I would like to say that safety is a priority objective for the Commission .
As I will say in the debate on the Erika disaster , we do not wait until there is a disaster to deal with the question of safety , but we work on it even when there are no such circumstances , which simply serve to demonstrate the urgency for an effective response to this type of problem .
I would like to repeat my appreciation to all the speakers and especially to the rapporteur , Mr Koch .
The debate is closed .
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m.
Transport of dangerous goods by road
The next item is the report ( A5-0104 / 1999 ) by Mr Koch , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Directive 94 / 55 / EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road [ COM ( 1999 ) 158 - C5-0004 / 1999 - 1999 / 0083 ( COD ) ] .
Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , the directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road , which entered into force on 1 January 1997 , contains a number of transitional provisions which are only valid for a limited period of time , the term of validity being linked to the completion of specific standardisation work by the CEN , that is the European Committee for Standardisation .
Delays in the CEN ' s work are now making it difficult to apply this very directive .
In particular , annexes cannot be adapted to take account of technical and industrial developments .
I regret this since we are having to take action because others have not done their job .
In this respect , I accept this proposal to amend Directive 94 / 55 / EC which has been tabled for discussion today .
Should the European Union fail to take action , then Member States would be obliged to amend their national legislation for a very brief period , until the CEN completes its work , which would cause unnecessary cost and uncertainty .
The amendment to the directive on today 's agenda does not therefore affect the existing harmonisation of the transport of dangerous goods in the Community .
It merely prolongs transitional rules by postponing deadlines , deletes provisions which are no longer applicable , and lays down the procedures for a ) carrying out the ad hoc transportation of dangerous goods and b ) enacting less stringent national regulations , in particular for the transport of very small amounts of dangerous goods within strictly defined local areas .
The amendment to the directive is consequently in full accordance with the principle of subsidiarity ; the Member States obtain more powers .
The Commission decides whether the Member States may impose certain rules of their own .
In so doing , it is supported by a committee of experts on the transport of dangerous goods under the regulatory procedure .
The procedures for the exercise of these implementing powers conferred on the Commission were laid down afresh in the Council Decision of June 1999 .
The proposal to be discussed today , to amend the directive on the transport of dangerous goods by road , dates from May 1999 , however , and could not therefore take account of the latest comitology procedure .
Two of the amendments tabled and adopted unanimously by the committee relate precisely to this amended comitology procedure .
We would like to ensure that there is a reference to this as early as the recitals and that the period within which the Council has to make a decision - which is not clearly worded - is set at a maximum of three months .
In addition , the need for greater transparency has been pointed out .
A further amendment allows the Member States to impose more stringent requirements , in particular for vacuum tanks , if work is done or goods are transported as a priority in temperatures well below -20?C .
This is in the special interest of northern European regions .
A final amendment is intended to ensure that tanks and tankers put into service between 1 January 1997 and the entry into force of this directive may continue to be used provided that they have been constructed and maintained in accordance with it .
I do realise that this is only a small step towards increased transport safety , but I would ask you to endorse this report .
Mr President , colleagues , a happy new year and millennium to you all .
I am speaking for the first time in this plenary part-session , so this is quite exciting for me , a little like first love , although that did last longer than two minutes .
I would like to briefly comment on the Commission ' s proposal to amend the directive on the transport of dangerous goods by road .
It is good that this directive should be established now , as , otherwise , Member States would have to amend their national acts for a very short time , a period of transition , which would again mean unnecessary costs and which would once more increase concern with regard to EU bureaucracy .
The Commission ' s proposal , however , does not take account of all the facts , such as the cold climate that prevails in the northern regions .
Consequently , I have tabled some amendments to Mr Koch ' s intrinsically excellent report , which have been adopted by our committee .
My amendments concern the frost-resistance ratings for tankers carrying these dangerous goods .
According to the Commission ' s proposal -20?C would have been sufficient .
On the shores of the Mediterranean , it is hard to imagine that in Lapland temperatures can fall considerably lower than that .
There is support for the EU in Lapland also , so let us remember them .
I have thus proposed that the frost rating be lowered to -40?C .
This would be necessary to keep safety standards at the level they were in northern regions previously .
I hope my proposal will be taken into consideration in tomorrow ' s vote .
Mr President , with your permission I should like to begin by expressing my admiration for the way in which you executed the quick changeover of the chairmanship just now during the debate .
I thought that it was quite superb .
On the subject at hand , I think that the people of Europe must be able to be confident that the goods - however dangerous they are - which are transported on Europe 's roads , railways , and so on are as safe as possible .
This directive is a contribution to this .
What we are doing today is essentially a nuisance .
The rapporteur , Mr Koch , to whom we express our thanks for the work which he has done on this , has already pointed out that basically everything could have been somewhat more advanced had it not been for the inactivity on the part of the CEN , which has been very dilatory in drawing up and adapting the directive .
That is why we can only hope - and we should resolve all of this this week - that , in 2001 , we will finally have Community regulations for the transport of dangerous goods by road so that we have a degree of legal certainty here and also so that our roads are a good deal safer .

Mr President , the report we are discussing here does not , in itself , entail any major changes . Most of the proposed amendments are of a purely technical nature .
It is nonetheless worth emphasising that , each time we make this type of decision , it is good from a broad environmental perspective and it is beneficial because it creates better prior conditions for exploiting the possibilities of the internal market .
Very large quantities of dangerous goods are transported around the EU , both on roads and railways and by sea .
This makes it necessary to have proper rules governing transport of this kind . In area after area , we are now obtaining common minimum regulations for the Member States .
This is extraordinarily positive , and there is cause to thank the rapporteur , Mr Koch , for the work he has put in on this issue .
This is also important where the prerequisites for the internal market are concerned .
If we are to get a common transport market genuinely up and running , it is important that we should not only have regulations but that these regulations should also , as far as possible , apply to every country .
I should like to conclude by commenting on a third matter which is also of significance , namely an amendment tabled by Member of Parliament , Mr Ari Vatanen .
In many ways , the prerequisites differ from one Member State to another .
By approving this amendment , we take account of the fact that it can be very cold in the northern parts of the European Union .
This makes it necessary to also take account of the ways in which materials and packaging are affected by cold of this kind .
It is good that , in establishing the present regulations , we can also be flexible . I hope that the Commission is able to accept the present amendment .
Mr President , I would like to thank not only Mr Koch , but also the Vice-President of the Commission for the clear and unambiguous way in which they have declared their support for safety in the transport sector and acknowledged it as a priority .
The reason Mr Koch produced his sound report was because the work in the CEN and within the United Nations Economic Commission was proceeding none too expeditiously .
I would like to ask the Vice-President if she is in a position to tell us today what the state of play is with regard to the efforts towards harmonisation being made by these two organisations , and whether the EU is in a position to hasten these harmonisation efforts , in accordance with principles that are as simple as possible .
For one thing is clear : even if we come to an excellent arrangement within the European Union , traffic does not stop at our borders , it goes beyond them .
Hence there is certainly every reason to introduce more far-reaching regional provisions .
If the Commissioner is unable to do so today then would she be prepared to inform the committee in writing of how matters stand and what stage negotiations between the CEN and the Economic Commission are at ?
Mr President , I would once again like to congratulate Mr Koch on his magnificent work on this other report , which in a way supplements the debate which we held in October on rail transport .
We all regret that the European Committee for Standardisation ( CEN ) has not been able , in the required time , to carry out the amendment of the provisions necessary for the required harmonisation within the European Union .
This debate and the amendment of the directive currently in force allow us to incorporate differentiating elements which demonstrate the diversity of this Europe of ours .
A moment ago , Mr Vatanen spoke to us of lower temperatures , not of 20 degrees below zero , but of 40 degrees below zero .
Of course , we accept that amendment - it is absolutely right - and I believe that we should incorporate specific circumstances which demonstrate the climatic diversity of the European Union , which sometimes take the form of specifics and of concrete requirements for the establishment of standards and characterisations of a technical nature .
I would like to say , with regard to Mr Swoboda ' s comments on the activity of the CEN , that we are urging them to speed up their work as much as possible because it would be terrible if , despite the new deadline , we were to find ourselves after a year and a bit with the same difficulties because their work has not been concluded .
Lastly , Mr President , the basic problems justifying this amendment of the directive have been pointed out . We have referred to the delay by the CEN , the amendment of certain provisions , the consistency between the text of the directive and the content of the annexes and the need to for it to be more specific .
The Commission accepts all of the contributions of the parliamentary committee and the rapporteur , Mr Koch , which are contained in the various amendments , specifically four .
We therefore accept the four amendments which have been proposed .
The debate is closed .
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m.
Structural Funds - Cohesion Fund coordination
The next item is the report ( A5-0108 / 1999 ) by Mrs Schroedter , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the communication from the Commission in the field of the Structural Funds and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund : guidelines for programmes in the period 2000-2006 [ COM ( 1999 ) 344 - C5-0122 / 1999 - 1999 / 2127 ( COS ) ] .
Mr President , it is particularly pleasing for me to make my first speech in the European Parliament on what is regarded as the most important issue within that part of the United Kingdom that I represent in this Parliament , namely Wales .
A major part of Wales , as you know , has been granted Objective 1 status under the Structural Funds programme .
It is quite clear that many people within Wales are looking to the European Structural Funds programme to alleviate some of the great difficulties that we undoubtedly face .
We have seen poverty growing in Wales ; and growing still further since 1997 .
We have seen the gap between rich and poor widen .
We are looking , therefore , within the Structural Funds programme not just to see industrial restructuring but also to see a wider improvement in the whole of the economic base within the Principality .
What is , however , deeply damaging for us is the belief that in some way the granting of Structural Funds assistance is something that has been , in a sense , a success of the government .
It is sadly only a recognition of the very great difficulties that Wales faces .
That is why I want to highlight some of the issues that I believe the Commission must have at the forefront .
We look to the Commission to deal with points in relation to additionality .
We are dissatisfied with the fact that those figures seem to have been in some way hidden within UK figures .
We look to the Commission also to ensure that there is matched funding for projects .
We look to it to challenge the UK Government , to ensure that the private sector , which surely must be providing the major impetus for Structural Funds expenditure , is involved in the planning stage .
Finally , we ask that the Commission ensures that Structural Fund monies are spent in a way which is transparent .
Too much of what takes place within this Parliament is not transparent .
This is one area in which I believe the Commission can be a very great friend to Wales .
Mr President , our committee views these issues very differently and , to start , I will speak from the point of view of research .
We see it as a very positive sign that , in her own conclusions , the rapporteur has taken account of our committee ' s proposal that the Cohesion Fund countries should broaden the research infrastructure by locating universities and colleges in such a way that they would serve those who live in undeveloped regions better than now and make it easier for educated people to remain in their home districts .
This will be possible with action on the part of governments , and such decentralisation of higher education will be an unquestionably useful policy in evening out development .
Another matter we would like to address , specifically from the point of view of industrial policy , is that we would have liked the Commission to pay more attention to the effects of services , electronic commerce and the growing use of the Internet , when they were planning the coordination of Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds .
Poverty and wealth used to depend more on means of livelihood .
The rich areas were those where there were jobs in industry , but today those areas might have become a burden , and they may well be poor , meaning we also have to invest in new sectors of industry such as electronic production , as I might call it , and the production of services , because they are the industries of the future .
In my opinion the committee drafting the report has not taken sufficient account of this , so on behalf of the Committee on Industry , External Trade , Research and Energy , I would draw the Commission ' s attention to this issue .
Finally , as the committee representing energy , we would have liked the issue of support for renewable energy resources from Cohesion and Regional Development funds to have been emphasised still more , thus , through a process of coordination , increasing the use of renewables so that the scant funding resources in the energy programme might have been compensated by means of these more substantial sums .
Mr President , I would very much like to thank Mrs Schroedter for the work she has done on this and to explain to colleagues that I am speaking for my colleague , Mrs Flautre , who followed this for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs but who is unfortunately ill .
I would like to draw people 's attention to Amendments Nos 1 and 2 which were agreed by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs but not accepted by the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism .
These amendments deal with the social economy and the need to provide social risk capital and support financially local schemes to develop employment opportunities and strengthen social cohesion .
In the past , this Parliament has viewed the social economy as an important potential provider of employment .
These amendments also fit in with this Parliament 's view that social exclusion is a serious issue needing constructive action .
We hope that those considering rejection of these amendments have very powerful reasons to offer to both Parliament and their citizens who are seeking employment .
In her report , Mrs Flautre also drew attention to an area where coordination is sorely lacking , yet desperately needed .
The Commission proposals refer to the four pillars of employment strategy and the five fields of action of the European Social Fund .
But the lack of specific guidelines here is particularly to be regretted , as the idea of linking Social Fund assistance to the employment strategy will be put into effect for the first time during the 2000-2006 programme .
It could be said that the omission gives the impression that the Commission too has no idea how to provide maximum coordination between European Social Fund assistance , which is subject to review after three and a half years , and the Member States ' annual national plans for employment .
We hope that the Commission can reassure us that this was an oversight which is now being dealt with constructively .
Mr President , Commissioner , the proposal presented by the Commission , in accordance with its mandate , is a reasonable starting point for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development .
I would like to point out , however , that this starting point indicates to us the challenges which face us : maintaining a population in rural areas , given the changes taking place in all types of economic activity owing to agriculture ' s increasing lack of importance amongst the various sources of income for rural society .
This , as well as the deficiencies in the networks of infrastructures and services and a generally very low level of employment , which furthermore is seasonal and lacks diversity , exacerbates the exodus from rural areas .
The consequences do not inspire hope .
It is the young people who are disappearing , who are getting an education and finding work outside of the rural areas , all of which has an unfavourable effect on those areas .
This lack of infrastructure is also an obstacle to the establishment of companies and the creation of jobs .
We have to remember that rural areas represent almost four fifths of the territory of the European Union .
Agriculture only provides 5.5 % of employment in the Union .
Furthermore , three quarters of our farm workers are part-time and require supplements to their incomes .
For this reason , one of the most important and essential objectives which we should set in the European Union is to make efforts to create new jobs in rural areas , outside of the agricultural sector , in sectors such as rural tourism , sport , culture , heritage conservation , the conversion of businesses , new technologies , services , etc . However , even though the role of agriculture is not exclusive , it is still essential , not only to prevent economic and social disintegration and the creation of ghost towns , but also because farmers play a fundamental role in managing the land , in preserving biodiversity and in protecting the environment .
Therefore , we support the establishment of an agricultural and rural development policy which is consistent with the objectives we have set . We want rural areas , at the dawn of the 21st century , to be competitive and multi-functional , both with regard to agriculture and with regard to opening up to the diversity of non-agricultural activities .
It is important to prioritise general criteria for land planning and demographic equilibrium , and to bear in mind the conclusions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the five fundamental issues , which have been only partly taken up by the Committee on Transport , Regional Policy and Tourism in its points 16 and 17 .
In conclusion , I would ask the Commission to take these five points into account when establishing the conclusions on the four pillars because I believe that , for the European Union , maintaining the population in rural areas must be one of the priority objectives .
Mr President , Commissioner , I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Schroedter , the rapporteur , for her work .
I think that this work has been carried out extremely well .
I would also like to thank her for her willingness to enter into dialogue with the other political groups when compromise formulas have needed to be reached in the face of this avalanche of amendments - and perhaps there are more of them than we expected - but which genuinely reflect the importance of the report we are now discussing .
We feel that it is important that the Commission takes account of the conclusions adopted by this Parliament , at least in spirit , because at this stage , it might seem as though what we are doing here is a useless exercise , and nothing but hot air .
The truth of the matter though is that we believe - and this is also shown in the way the conclusions have been drafted - that the Commission must take account of what is adopted by this Parliament , particularly in the face of an interim revision of these directives .
In our amendments , we have stated the importance of the necessary synergies being produced between the Structural Funds , the Cohesion Fund and Community initiatives , so that their application should be reflected , in the best and most profitable way , by the gradual elimination of disparities between regions and by the creation of jobs which are , when all is said and done , the two central purposes of the funds we are discussing .
In order to achieve a more rapid and efficient boost for attaining these objectives , we think that those who generate employment , the real entrepreneurs and those who really guarantee new sources of employment , that is , businesspeople , must participate in this initiative .
Small and medium-sized businesses , above all , need to take part in the distribution of these funds .
If they do not , if businesspeople feel marginalised , if entrepreneurs cannot take part , not only in managing but also in receiving these funds , we will have missed an opportunity to attain our objectives more rapidly .
Also , in order to attain our objectives , to overcome the disparities between regions and to seek out sources of employment , it is crucial to give our complete support to new technologies , to transport and communications networks and to renewable energies .
All of this must be done - I repeat - with the participation of private business , which , by uniting its efforts with those of public administrations , but complementing them , never obstructing or excluding them , will lead to the creation of wealth in society and of jobs .
Mr President , it is incumbent upon me to remind my colleague , Mr Evans , of why Wales actually achieved Objective 1 status .
It was because of the discredited policies of his own Conservative Party .
Let me also remind him that when his party leader , Mr Hague , was Secretary of State for Wales , he broke every rule in the book on additionality which led to a stern letter from Commissioner Wulf-Mathies regarding regulatory requirements .
I can tell you that the British Government is aware of its regulatory requirements on Objective 1 additionality .
I suggest Mr Evans goes back and reads the regulation .
My Group has made extensive amendments to both reports up for debate today .
I want to focus our minds on the essential role of the guidelines .
The objective is to provide a framework and tool to support and enhance economic regeneration , to get the most effective use of resources in the widest partnership and to put these regions back on the road to recovery and sustainable development so that eventually they come off the regional life-support machine .
It is important to identify the skills and potential of our regions in the hi-tech sector .
It is particularly important in the light of reports in the media that Europe is rapidly losing ground to the US in the hi-tech growth industries of the future .
The operation of the previous round of programmes is also very instructive in telling us what guidelines should not be about .
They should not be about creating additional layers of bureaucracy and red tape .
They should not be about shifting priorities and policies halfway through project development , resulting in inevitable delays and underspends , particularly in the light of the new budgetary requirement .
The implementation and operation of the guidelines cannot be left to the personal interpretation of one or other desk officer , either in the Commission or in the civil service .
There must be an internal coherence in the Commission directorate , while respecting the specific local and regional aspects of Commission programmes .
The conclusion is that we must make the case for guidelines to be broad , indicative and flexible to assist our programme managers and fund-users and to get the maximum potential out of our new fields of regeneration .
If we can inject a spirit of entrepreneurial activity into our poor and structurally weak regions we will eventually get them back onto the road of attracting substantial investor confidence , which will be the key to future success .
This is how we are going to judge the success of these guidelines : whether EU regional policy with a good , solid , enabling guideline , can open up new opportunities and allow our poor and structurally weak regions to play their full part in contributing to the growth and prosperity of the EU .


Mr President , Commissioner , I would like to thank Mrs Schroedter for an excellent report .
She has gone into the issue in some depth and in the committee debate she took account of many of the amendments that have been tabled regarding this report .
The rapporteur has also quite rightly stated that Parliament was not heard in time regarding the guidelines .
We are badly behind now in this matter .
Hopefully , the stands Parliament has taken will help , however , in the mid-term appraisal of the programmes and in their practical implementation .
For the time , the report grew too large when it was being debated . It contained details and issues that had already been raised in previous reports .
At this stage it is more important to concentrate on assessing how we can use this process to steer Union regional policy , bearing in mind that the aim is to reduce regional inequality .
Our Group emphasises the importance of the principle of subsidiarity , the responsibility of Member States and the role of local players in drafting and implementing programmes . It is especially important to get SMEs involved in the planning and implementation of programmes .
Our Group also considers it important to take greater account of remote and peripheral areas and wishes to increase interaction between towns and rural areas .
We oppose the excessive control the central administration of the Union and its Member States exercises and we are calling for a reduction in the bureaucracy that has taken root in the drafting and implementation of programmes .
Projects implemented with support from the Union have had their effect watered down all too often by slow decision making and complicated administrative processes .
Funds have often been granted for projects which have had no lasting benefit for the area concerned . Projects have to be carried out more efficiently , more flexibly and they have to be made more productive .
While the report was being prepared , it was interesting to discuss the Union ' s regional policy in general .
For us new members , it was the first time , and this was a very interesting process .
This report is very good and our Group supports it .
Mr President , Commissioner , as proof that this Parliament has not yet overcome its role as a consultative and subordinate institution , the excellent report by a fellow member of my Group , Elisabeth Schroedter , has not been able to reach plenary sitting because the plans for regional development for the period 2000-2006 for Objective 1 regions have been sitting in the Commission ' s offices for several months .
Bearing this in mind , this House should , in any event , demand that , before the Community support frameworks for the period in question are approved , they be studied and submitted for debate in this Parliament , specifically in light of the guidelines that we have presented today . This is because we think that they are particularly able to create employment in the poorest and least-developed regions and we would thus contribute to reversing the harmful trends towards inequality that exist in European society and to the move towards a fairer Europe .
Mr President , we should not forget that the main , strategic objective of the Structural and Cohesion Funds and of their coordination is to achieve economic and social cohesion .
We are obliged to participate in drafting directives and also in assessing their results .
We are obliged to do so because we are the representatives of the citizens in a Europe of Citizens and not just in a Europe of States and of Regions .
We feel that the Funds are a necessary but insufficient condition for achieving economic and social cohesion .
We might be mistaken in using the gross domestic product per inhabitant as the sole indicator .
Some speakers have already mentioned unemployment and the fall in population .
We will have to study several indicators , which will enable us to see the current state of regional societies that are in a worse situation than others , and how they are evolving .
It is clear from some of the reports that have been presented to Parliament ' s plenary sitting today that Europe ' s 25 most prosperous regions enjoy a level of unemployment which is five times lower than in the 25 least prosperous regions .
This fact means that the European Parliament , the Commissioner and the Commission must act decisively and strategically .
I agree that the European Parliament did not have the opportunity - or that it was not given the opportunity , as we had reached the end of the parliamentary term - to discuss the directives .
I do not think , however , that this report has come too late .
We need to consider it together , so that the new Objective 1 programmes and the plans for regional development , which have been drafted before the directives come into force , can be submitted for revision and proper assessment .
We all agree that we should ask that , halfway through these programmes , when the assessment of the directives is made , Parliament should be given an equally influential role on the grounds that we are the citizens ' representatives .
Our citizens cannot accept that the European Union takes decisions in a way that is , at least on the face of it , bureaucratic .
They need to see the political dimension working , to see that officials accept their responsibilities and that there is communication with the citizens .
This is what we are today asking the Commissioner for .
I would like to think that , given his previous experience as a regional President , he will agree to propose indicators , and a strategy , which will favour economic and social cohesion and not just productivity .
Mr President , I support the main proposals of the report concerning the administration of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the period 2000-2006 and the main recommendations of the report which include the following : there must always be an integrated approach to the spending of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds .
This means that there must be a comprehensive partnership between local authorities and national governments with regard to how these funds are to be spent .
Member States are urged to attach greater importance to integrated strategies for revitalising relations between towns and rural areas . This latter point is of particular importance .
While urban renewal in our cities is very important we must always strike a balance in our policies between promoting rural development and improving the lives of city dwellers .
We do not want to build a Europe of cities alone .
The Structural Funds have played a key role in the development both of urban and rural parts of peripheral countries , mainly through the upgrading of roads , water treatment and related transport networks .
This process will continue in accordance with the financial spending guidelines laid down by the EU leaders at their Berlin Summit last year , which were supported by Parliament at its last May plenary part-session .
Key EU programmes between 1989 , 1993 , 1994 and 1999 have certainly helped to improve the economic competitiveness of peripheral countries and Objective 1 regions within Europe .
The key now is to consolidate and make permanent the progress made to date .
This would ensure that the peripheral countries and the ultraperipheral regions , the poorer regions in Europe , are in a position to operate successfully within the new euro currency zone , as well as within an ever-expanding internal market where the free movement of goods , persons , services and capital exist .
In conclusion , while key infrastructure projects have been supported by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund , we should remember that the European Social Fund has played a very important role in helping the less well-off in our society .
The Social Fund has certainly improved our third-level institutions , financed our post-leaving certificate programmes and put in place comprehensive schemes to help combat youth and long-term unemployment , assist early school leavers and promote higher standards of adult literacy .
Mr President , on numerous occasions in the past I have disagreed with the rapporteur on her approach to regional policy issues . This time , however , I actually agree with her .
Whether or not this will encourage her to continue along the same path , I cannot say . Nevertheless , I would like to commend her on her work .
The second point I would like to make is that we would have preferred it if the guidelines had been added to the regulation in the form of an annex , as we and Mrs McCarthy , as rapporteurs for the general regulation , had asked .
Unfortunately , this did not happen . Mr Berni? is not to blame for this as it was a matter for the previous committee .
I am raising the issue just to reiterate Parliament ' s position .
Thirdly , we broadly agree on the general guidelines provided they do not deviate from the comments we have made so far .
They are particularly beneficial to the Member States , and I would particularly like to draw your attention to the emphasis the Commission has placed on the issues of sustainable development , job creation and , more particularly , on equal opportunities and transport issues .
Personally , I at least am totally in favour of the guidelines .
As an islander , however , I would like to express my dissatisfaction at the lack of recognition of island development .
This is not the first time that this issue has not been given the consideration it deserves . This has been an ongoing concern for the five years that I have been a Member of this Parliament , and I have raised the issue time and time again .
Commissioner , we shall continue to raise the issue , as Article 158 , paragraph 1 , of the Treaty of Amsterdam provides for an integrated policy for islands .
Therefore , the Commission should address the issue once and for all .
The time has come to implement the programmes , and so Member States should also assume their responsibilities and do their jobs properly .
As for us in Parliament , I would like to remind you of the code of conduct between the Commission and Parliament which was signed in May .
I am absolutely certain that this code will be observed and that Parliament will keep abreast of all the developments and details concerning the implementation of the programmes .
Mr President , Commissioner , in this minute and a half I should like , first of all , to congratulate Mrs Schroedter .
I know many have already done so , but she has indeed earned our praise for being particularly open and attentive to proposals from all sides , and I think it is this openness which has given her report the quality we see today .
I share the regrets she expressed , namely that Parliament has become involved rather late in the day as regards these guidelines , since by now the procedure for negotiations with the states is so far advanced that I cannot see this report having any sort of immediate effect , which in my view is a pity .
Consequently , I feel we must look to the future and establish guidelines for the mid-term review in 2003 , and thus have an influence on the second phase of programming set to follow 2003 .
In brief , I would like to say that we are entering the period when we are called upon to manage the programming for 2000-2006 , which must be no routine period for the good reason that we have two major challenges to face .
The first is the harmonisation of national development policies and regional development policies .
Subsidies are not enough to ensure development when infrastructure and public services are lacking .
We must ask ourselves a fundamental question : how can we ensure that Union policy interfaces with the subsidiary national policies for regional development ?
The second challenge is that of enlargement which will , of course , have a considerable impact , both in budgetary and geographical terms .
These are two areas of action which I invite the Commissioner to set up and in which I would ask him to involve us .
Finally , in this time of natural disasters , I would just like to mention the issue of the use of Structural Funds .
As you know , it is up to each State to redistribute part of the total appropriation .
Europe should not be completely absent , as the states tend to want .
Public opinion and the press nowadays accuse us of being unavailable to give a response , even though we are going to be funding a large proportion of the national operations .
I think we should be capable of saying this loud and clear .
I also think we should ensure , or ask Member States to ensure , that there is some publicity given to European aid whenever it is used to repair damage caused by natural disasters or accidents .
Mr President , the priority given to financial and monetary criteria reinforces the increase in inequalities of every shape and form .
As far as French planning experts are concerned , for example , the most probable scenario today is that of the entrenchment of regional disparities within each country .
Well , the Structural Funds have helped to apply a brake to this process .
Our project of a Europe that aims to satisfy social needs envisages the convergence of living conditions towards the highest common denominator .
Its implementation would certainly require extending the scope of redistribution instruments such as the Structural Funds .
What we are proposing specifically is a unified capital tax , which would make it possible to boost the funds used to support the harmonisation of social protection systems and the reduction of working hours at European level .
The Commission , however , though bound to issue guidelines , does so only reluctantly and in a vague manner .
The report put forward today re-establishes its place in the political sphere .
It is one of the steps towards a policy of employment and sustainable development .
This is what persuades us to vote in favour of it .
Mr President , I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work .
Over the coming years , faced with the challenges of globalisation and eastward enlargement , Europe will , more than ever before , require appropriate detailed guidance on how to plan and revitalise its economy .
To this end , Europe as a whole , and each Member State individually , will have to make optimum use of all available resources and capacities , including the Structural Funds .
For this to be possible , what we need from the European Commission are not just good intentions , but clearer guidelines and a firm commitment to monitoring the way these resources are used by the Member States .
For example , in recent years Italy has had problems in utilising the Structural Funds , mainly because of excessive bureaucracy , insufficient information and a lack of involvement of economic and social operators at local level .
There are , therefore , two points to which I would like to draw the Commission ' s attention .
Firstly , we need to make the best possible use of consultation as a means of ensuring proper coordination and participation by all local and regional operators in decision-making , precisely so that imbalances and inequalities can be avoided . Secondly , a genuine effort is required to make administrative procedures simpler and more transparent , since , they are all too often unnecessarily lengthy and complicated , to the point of hindering access to the Funds .
This is something about which European small and medium-sized businesses , in particular , tend to complain .
I will conclude , Mr President , by saying that the failure of the Commission ' s communication to focus on territorial pacts and , especially , methods of combating unemployment among women and young people , is cause for serious concern .
Mr President , like my colleague Mr Evans , it is a particular pleasure to rise and make my first speech to this House on this very important issue , especially since I represent a part of the United Kingdom , the West Midlands , which has hitherto benefited from Objective 2 funding in particular .
But the report before the House tonight is a prime example of how , if we are not very careful , we can produce very grandiose-sounding ideas that lack the substance to make them relevant to the people who benefit directly from them .
The report itself is well-intentioned but , as so often when we deal with these issues , lacks clarity of purpose and a sound basis for operability .
That is why I and my Group are proposing three key amendments and additions to the text , not to take anything away from the proposal , but to make it more relevant to those whom it is there to guide .
I would like to explain our thinking here .
Firstly , we are concerned with the proper use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds .
Past experience dictates that , as the elected representatives of the European taxpayer , we should , and indeed must , demand financial probity and transparency in the disbursement and auditing of this money , hence our amendments and additions relate to achieving what are known as " value for money " indicators in the grant-giving process .
Next , we all too often see vast sums of money being spent on projects whose outcomes will necessarily be unclear at the start of the programme period .
But at the mid-way point or end of that period there is no effective way of terminating the project if it has not proved successful .
Our additions therefore call for the provision of practical enforceable exit strategies so that not only can we have the requisite insurance against ongoing costs which are often loaded onto the taxpayer , but we also avoid the well-rehearsed syndrome of throwing good money after bad .
Finally , we call for a change to the balance and method by which the funds are disbursed .
There should be greater involvement of the private sector which will introduce financial reality as a perspective within the funding equation .
Also the type of project funded needs to be shifted away from small-scale revenue-based projects , which are hard to monitor , towards capital schemes where , in the majority of cases , the benefits are there for all to see .
That way the much-trumpeted need for transparency in the use of these funds and the temptation to draw unnecessarily in the longer term on the local tax base in areas where such projects are located will be diminished and the European Parliament will show how seriously it takes the need for such reform .
If these changes to the report are supported by the House today , I believe that they will move us forward in the next phase of achieving the historic objectives which the funds were set up to bring about , namely to assist - in a financially sustainable manner - those deprived areas of the European Union which need to be brought up to a decent standard of living , not by giving a hand-out but by giving a " hand-up " .
I urge the House to support these changes .
Mr President , Commissioner , I too would like to commend the rapporteur on her report , which is a meticulous and substantive piece of work .
The European Union ' s structural and cohesion policies are , without doubt , essential tools for creating the right conditions with a view to tackling and reducing the levels of economic and social disparity between the regions .
Despite the steps taken thus far , these levels are still very high , and are unacceptably high as regards unemployment .
These policy objectives can only be achieved through their careful coordination and organisation on the basis of well thought-out and sensible guidelines .
Let us not forget that when these policies are effective , they also benefit European citizens by directly improving their quality of life .
Let us not forget either that greater consideration should be given to the islands and remote regions of the European Union because their geographical location is a hindrance to their economic and social development , unless of course the Commission is intending to build bridges or underwater tunnels linking them to the European mainland .
In closing , I would like to point out that the structural policies as a whole require greater flexibility so that they can adapt to changing circumstances and thereby respond to the new challenges and opportunities of the new millennium , for which we all hope for the best .
Mr President , Mrs Schroedter ' s report undoubtedly contains several important observations , and I would like to congratulate her on that .
However , I feel that we should be a little more concerned about the actual direction and outcome of the Community ' s regional policy .
Quite briefly , structural policy does not ease the problem of mass unemployment in any way , rather it aggravates it .
The agricultural economy and agricultural regions have been irreparably damaged by the existing regional policy , which has had dramatic consequences on employment levels in rural areas and on the living conditions of farmers , particularly in the South .
Regional disparities are becoming much more marked within the Member States .
If we examine the data presented in the sixth periodic report , we will see that the last decade has witnessed a proliferation of regional disparities .
Little consideration , if any at all , has been given to the great problems facing the island regions of the Union whose shortcomings as regards infrastrucutres structure , transport , communication and energy has resulted in their gradual depopulation .
The Union ' s economic and social policy is just as much to blame for that as its regional policy .
A large section of the Union ' s population has strongly condemned this policy for being dangerous and anti grass-roots .
Unfortunately , the new guidelines seem to be heading in the same direction and there are no signs that things will change once they have been implemented .
Mr President , I would like to say a few words in order to highlight two points made in these reports which are of fundamental strategic importance to the way we see the Union .
The first is the fundamental , central importance that we continue to give to the principle of economic and social cohesion .
We are concerned to hear news that the Commission is taking this objective less seriously .
We still feel that economic and social cohesion is one of the Union ' s fundamental objectives .
Secondly , I agree with what has already been said on the issue of the islands and I would also like to bring the outermost regions to your attention .
In future , we would like to see greater ambition applied to the subject of the outermost regions such as , in my country , the islands of the Azores and Madeira .
I would like to ask if the Commission is able to enlighten us on the reasons for the delay in the Commission ' s report on the outermost regions , which has been long awaited by Parliament ?
Mr President , first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur , not least for being willing to include in the report the suggestions we made .
Mr President , Commissioner , the guidelines are intended to help steer the Member States towards achieving the reform objectives contained in the programmes .
However , contrary to their claim to provide guidance , the Commission ' s proposals in this respect are reminiscent to a far greater extent of a catalogue of possible measures within the scope of the various policy areas .
Nonetheless , their true purpose is to give direction and to set priorities .
I agree with the rapporteur that unfortunately the Commission document contains too little in the way of recommendations to the Member States on simplifying administration , and I support the calls for negotiations to concentrate on promoting a favourable climate for labour-intensive , small and medium-sized enterprises , on setting clear objectives for alternative sources of financing including provisions for risk capital and private financing , and on start-up help for companies including new information technologies and investment in innovative fields .
I am particularly in favour of a proposed amendment tabled by my Group to paragraph 10 , to ensure an appropriate level of private sector involvement in the planning and implementation of the projects .
I should be very grateful , Mrs Schroedter , if you would actually include this proposed amendment in the part relating to subsidiarity in your positive deliberations .
Mr President , Commissioner , in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs , we upheld unanimously the criterion that it was of strategic importance and a matter of priority to support the interventions of the Structural and Cohesion Funds which are working for a better opportunity for jobs for the unemployed and for equality between men and women .
Unfortunately , the excellent Schroedter report did not take account of this criterion , despite the fact that there is considerable evidence to show - as we shall see later in the Berend report - how , in fact , these funds are providing splendid assistance to the most backward regions in order to bridge the gulf that separates them from Europe ' s most highly-developed regions .
They are growing , but only in terms of GDP .
They are increasing in competitiveness but they are not all experiencing an increase in wealth because there is no increase in employment and there are still differences in employment opportunities between regions .
Commissioner , please read the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and treat it as a matter of priority , because this is our citizens ' greatest problem .
Please take account , in strategic terms , in the revision and in the allocation of reserves , of employment needs , because this , fundamentally is what the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds require .
Mr President , it is important that the guidelines head in the right direction and that they guarantee the effectiveness of the programmes of the crucial seven-year period 2000-2006 so as to ensure sustainable development and job creation , particularly for women and young people , and ensure a balance is struck between economic and social policy and regional policy .
It is particularly important to address those serious issues concerning urban areas , employment in rural areas , aid to agricultural regions and equal development opportunities for the islands of the European Union and for the Greek islands which , of course , comprise half of the islands of the Union , as stipulated in Article 158 of the Treaty .
Cohesion policy needs to be strengthened further because a Europe which totally disregards the standard of living in its regions can neither be reliable or viable .
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I would like to express my great interest in listening carefully to the comments , occasional criticisms and suggestions that some of you have just made in your speeches with reference to Mrs Schroedter ' s report .
Everyone understands , Mrs Schroedter , ladies and gentlemen , the reasons and the time limits involved - and I shall come back to this point presently - and whatever the time limits or delays , since we are discussing this report right now , as the representative for the Commission , I consider that the report has been issued at an opportune moment with regard to the guidelines for 2000-2006 as it is now that we are starting the new regional programming .
Mrs Schroedter , you quite rightly pointed out that while it is chiefly up to the Member States and the regions to define their own priorities in development matters , European Union cofinancing of the programmes requires , and is the justification for , a situation where Community priorities as debated and approved in this House should also be taken into account in order to promote this Community aspect of economic and social cohesion which many of you forcefully pointed out .
So , ladies and gentlemen , I should like in a moment to return to the role and structure of the guidelines before mentioning the principal comments and criticisms that you , Mrs Schroedter , and the various Members of this House , have made .
Regarding the role and structure of these guidelines , Mr Hatzidakis , Mrs Schroedter and Mrs McCarthy mentioned that the purpose of these guidelines is to assist national and regional authorities in preparing their programming strategy for each of Structural Fund Objectives 1 , 2 and 3 as well as their links with the Cohesion Funds .
This means putting forward the Commission ' s priorities , based on past experience in implementing the programmes , as well as current Community policies relating to structural operations .
The objective is that these priorities should contribute to the better use , to the optimum and efficient use , as some of you have wished , of Community involvement , including , Mr Bradbourn , using , if necessary , the performance reserve which is specifically intended to encourage the optimum and efficient use of European public monies .
When I speak of optimum utilisation , I am referring both to the national and regional levels . And so , Mr Sepp?nen , I shall also mention at this point , speaking of the national level , the link with the Cohesion Fund .
This is the purpose of these guidelines .
Regarding their content , as you know , ladies and gentlemen of this House , they are focused on three strategic priorities that your rapporteur pointed out very clearly but , at the same time , very passionately , as I understood her presentation just now .
The first priority is to improve the competitiveness of regional economies in order to create , in all sectors , but especially in the private sector , as Mr Berend said , the maximum number of serious , worthwhile and permanent jobs , the competitiveness of regional economies , all regional economies , and in particular , Mr Evans , that of Wales , but not only of Wales .
And , because there are a number of you who have just pointed out what appeared to you to be an omission , let me also add the regional economies of the European regions handicapped by their distance from the centre , be they remote regions , island regions or , of course , the most remote regions which are , naturally , the most distant .
Perhaps I may inform Mr Ribeiro e Castro , who asked me about this , that , as I wrote to the presidents of each of these most remote regions , the Commission did indeed request an extension of several weeks before publishing its anticipated report .
Concerning the most remote regions , it was only quite belatedly that we received the memorandums from the various governments , but this is not necessarily an excuse , just an explanation .
We must therefore take these memorandums into consideration and produce an extremely thorough piece of work .
I myself took part in a meeting of the most remote regions on 23 November and , within the College , we considered that we would need several more weeks before being able to produce a report that dealt appropriately with the extremely serious problems and lived up to the expectations of these most remote regions . I would thank you for your understanding in this matter .
So that is the first priority , the competitiveness of regional economies .
The second priority , which several of you have stressed , Mr Puerta in particular , but there were others , not that I am mentioning them in any order of priority , is the strengthening of social cohesion and of employment , particularly by raising the profile of human resources far more so than in the past .
Ladies and gentlemen , we now have a European Union where the disparities between countries are observed to be less great , proving the effectiveness and worth of the Cohesion Fund , but where , at the same time , in relation to unemployment - as you wrote , Mrs Schroedter - an increasing gap exists between the 15 or 20 richest regions and the 15 or 20 poorest or most disadvantaged regions . This is a situation which is , as it should be , unjustifiable and intolerable .
As far as I am concerned - taking into account my own concept of the construction of Europe and regional development policy in particular - this is a situation which I find unacceptable and I have every intention , as far as possible , with your support , of dedicating all the appropriations for which I am responsible to this improved social , human and territorial cohesion , particularly in order to prevent what I once called in this House a two-speed Europe , a Europe of wealthy districts but , at the same time , a Europe of impoverished areas .
The third objective is urban and rural development , within the scope of a balanced territorial policy .
In fact , the guidelines take two horizontal principles into account . The first is rural development , and let me say , Mrs Schroedter , that I am including in rural development the matter of sustainable transport , an issue I have been involved in personally for a long time .
I particularly remember the time when I was Minister for the Environment in my own country . The second principle is that of equal opportunities , particularly for men and women , as well as the European strategy for employment and the context of economic and monetary Union .
Finally , and in order to respond to the concerns which you have expressed in this House , particularly yourself , Mrs Schroedter , in these guidelines we recall the importance and the definition of integrated strategies , for development or redevelopment , which , of all the priorities , offer the maximum opportunity to synergy , to the measures undertaken and to the establishment of a decentralised partnership .
You expressed some concern about what might look like a lack of reference to this partnership , yet there is a clear reference to it on page 5 of the guidelines .
However , I do wish to mention - since you have asked me to do so - that , as far as I am concerned , this partnership - and I spent long enough as a regional administrator within my own country to be able to say this most sincerely - is a tool , one used to involve local brainpower , be it in the public sector , in the form of elected representatives , the social and educational sectors , associations , or in the private sector ; a decentralised partnership , and let me mention in this connection , in response to Mrs Angelilli , the territorial pacts , which are one of the means available to this decentralised partnership .
These are the reasons why the guidelines are presented according to thematic priorities , since they must be taken into consideration , under each of the objectives , to different extents in accordance with the specific situations of each of the Member States and regions .
I should now like to respond briefly to a few of the comments you have made , ladies and gentlemen , and firstly on procedure .
It is true that consultation with Parliament has only come about at a late date .
Let me remind you that when the guidelines were adopted by the Commission , in the form of a draft in February 1999 , in line with a new procedure intended to make it easier to present comments on this text , my predecessor , Mrs Wulf-Mathies , presented them to Parliament immediately .
Due to the elections to the European Parliament taking place around this time , however , Parliament was not able to undertake its examination of these guidelines until after the text had been definitively adopted , in July 1999 .
Here in this Chamber , ladies and gentlemen , among you , I wish to assure you that in the negotiations for the programmes which are only just beginning - Mr Hatzidakis asked me a question about this - as far as Member States are concerned , your observations will certainly be taken into consideration .
And let me assure you , furthermore , that when the Commission adopts the guidelines with what we call the mid-term review in mind , in line with the regulations , then the point of view of this House , as expressed in this report , will also be taken into account .
Now to the form .
On the subject of the role of the guidelines , Mrs Schroedter , you pointed out that this is the context in which guidelines on a number of European objectives , often very precise ones , should be provided .
I shall not list them all , but they include implementing intersectoral policies , increasing efficiency in the use of public funds , assisting the various partners in drawing up regional or national programming together , etc . The Commission takes note of these , but several of these guidelines or these questions are related more to other documents , such as the Guide to the Reform of the Structural Funds or the methodological working document .
Drawing to a close , I should like to focus on a number of challenges which you reiterated , Mrs Schroedter .
I am thinking , for example , of the idea that these guidelines are not specific enough in their recommendations .
This claim that your report makes must be seen in the context of last spring ' s negotiations .
The Commission kept to the actual text of Article 10 of the Structural Funds regulations , which stipulates that the aim of these guidelines is to provide Member States with broad , indicative guidelines on relevant and agreed Community policies .
I actually quoted the text itself , in quotation marks .
Moreover , the guidelines may not substitute for the programming or the ex ante assessments which must be the tool used to specify priorities and the effectiveness of these programmes .
You then mentioned , Mrs Schroedter , the section of the guidelines relating to urban and rural development , pointing out that urban development was not sufficiently taken into consideration .
I find the opposite the case .
I wish to confirm the great importance the Commission attaches , and shall attach , to the urban dimension of our cohesion policy .
Indeed , I had occasion recently to say as much to all the ministers responsible for urban policy at a meeting in Tampere .
As regards rural development , which a number of you brought up , particularly Mrs Redondo Jim?nez , the guidelines are in line with the twofold objective mentioned by your rapporteur : a strong agricultural sector linked with increased competitiveness in rural areas , but also protection of the environment and Europe ' s rural heritage .
It must , however , be stressed that the guidelines under discussion are related only to the Structural Funds , whose Objectives 1 and 2 specifically adopt the diversification of rural society as a priority .
And indeed , on the subject of the balance of rural society , let us not forget that there is also the new rural development policy cofinanced by the EAGGF Guarantee Section , aimed at promoting reform in European agriculture and supporting the multifunctional aspect of agriculture .
At this stage , I would simply like to say that I would like to see it integrated into the programming for Objective 2 rural areas , in the way that the EAGGF Guidance Section is for Objective 1 regions .
In any event , I appreciate the vigilance of your Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in this matter .
Before concluding , I should like to tell Mr Savary that we are going to have a special debate tomorrow on the consequences of the storms which have struck France , Austria and Germany , in particular , in the last few weeks , and at the same time we shall once again be discussing , together with my fellow Commissioner , Mrs de Palacio , what lessons we might draw in the matter of the oil spillage which has also affected the coasts of France .
I shall therefore reserve the right , if you permit , sir , to give you my own opinion , which , to a great extent , matches your own recommendation regarding what action we might take to combat the oil spillage using Objective 2 .
I shall remind you that the Commission is going to be approving the Objective 2 zoning plans for France , Sweden , Austria and Luxembourg tomorrow .
We shall then have an appropriate tool for working , particularly in the majority of the regions affected by the storms .
Indeed , this is my reason for paying a personal visit the day after tomorrow to two of the French departments which have been severely disabled by the storms .
In conclusion , with thanks for your understanding , Mr President , I should like to thank you , Mrs Schroedter , for the quality of your work and that of the committee , and to tell you that I am very pleased , apart from a few differences in our assessments of the role of the guidelines .
We have discussed this and I have attempted to clarify my point of view . I am very pleased with the level of support offered by your House to the Commission in establishing these guidelines , which have been submitted to the Member States for information when establishing their own programmes .
This can only reinforce the concept based on a number of elements of good practice drawn from our experience of the current 1994-1999 programmes .
I feel this augurs well for effective cooperation between our two institutions , at this time when programming for the period 2000-2006 is being undertaken , good joint working practice , which is , Mr Hatzidakis , backed up by something I am very attentive to : observance of the code of conduct which links our two institutions .
The debate is closed .
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m.
Social and economic situation and development of the regions of the Union
The next item is the debate on the report ( A5-0107 / 1999 ) by Mr Berend , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union [ SEC ( 99 ) 0066 - C5-0120 / 99 - 1999 / 2123 ( COS ) ] .
Mr President , Commissioner , this sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union constitutes a milestone in the analysis of regional data and highlights the progress made in this area since the issue of the fifth periodic report .
I consider , however , that the mention of any real convergence of average regional development levels in Europe offers a somewhat over-simplified view of the situation and , unfortunately , this is often the message taken up in the press and in some speeches .
The Commission report generally relativises this observation , particularly when it refers to the social and economic situation of some regions of the Union in which I have a special interest , by which I mean the French overseas departments and , more generally , the most remote regions .
In this respect , I am pleased to see that the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism has adopted one of my amendments calling on the Commission to devote a specific chapter in its next report on cohesion to the special case of the most remote regions and , more specifically , to consideration of the impact of the measures shortly to be adopted under new Article 299 ( 2 ) of the Treaty of Amsterdam .
Finally , in my view , this sixth periodic report presents interesting arguments from the viewpoint of a real project for the balanced sustainable development of Europe , particularly when it outlines the importance of relations between the central areas of Europe and its more remote regions .
Even if the Commission is still reluctant to say so in too explicit a fashion , its periodic report demonstrates the urgent need to promote polycentric development of the Community area through the Union ' s structural policies and within the scope of the approach initiated by the SEC .
Mr President , the Group of the Party of European Socialists in this Parliament agrees with the report that Mr Berend has just presented and congratulates the author , both on the quality of his conclusions and on his flexibility , which ensured that the different groups were able to incorporate amendments in committee .
It must be remembered that , currently , the European Union ' s overall competitiveness is , in general terms , 81 % of that of the United States of America and that this figure will only improve if the figure for our competitive units , that is the regions , also improves . Furthermore , this is at a time when technological development , economic globalisation and our problems , which are enlargement and the single currency , demand that the regions , as well as businesses and individuals , make more of an effort to be competitive .
The European Commission ' s sixth report presents very valuable conclusions .
I shall summarise two of those highlighted by the rapporteur , one positive and one negative .
The first is that important advances have been made in regional and social cohesion throughout the Union and that the Community Funds have been a major , although not decisive , factor in reducing regional inequalities .
The negative conclusion is that the great effort made has been more efficient in harmonising the European regions ' GDP and productivity than in harmonising its levels of unemployment .
It is therefore necessary to link structural financing more closely to job creation .
This , Commissioner , is the first commandment for the coming period .
Thus , Mr President , I ask my fellow Members to approve this report and I ask the Commission , as other speakers have done , to take good note of the conclusions of their sixth periodic report when they address the programming for the period 2000-2006 .


Mr President , Commissioner , I would first like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and for having taken due account of the proposed amendments while the committee was debating it .
The sixth periodical report gives a basis for assessing the implementation of the Union ' s regional policy aims . The report shows that growth has been uneven , despite all our efforts .
Very rapid growth is continuing in Central Europe . The strongest regional centres also continue to grow faster than the general European average , whereas many southern European and northern areas are developing considerably more slowly .
We now require an in-depth analysis of why regional policy is not producing the desired result in all areas .
Is the reason bureaucracy or is it because insufficient notice has been taken of interregional differences , long distances , climates that are too cold or too hot , sparse populations and austere conditions ?
How can the Union respond to the challenges of global development in a way that the less developed areas can remain a part of that development ?
It is also important to discover what the effects of Union enlargement will be on Structural Funds and the development of the Union ' s more remote areas .
The Member States must also bear in mind their responsibility .
Some Member States have been in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and cut national regional funds when regional aid coming via the Union has been increased .
This has chipped away at the results that regional policy has produced .
In the future , we must also develop indicators so that measures can be targeted at the right time at the right place .
For example , uncontrolled migration has not been given sufficient consideration .
In this connection , too , weight has to be given to the decisive importance of SMEs as employers and forces behind regional development .
It is absolutely essential that companies in areas developing more slowly adopt the latest technology and know-how .
Our Group is in favour of adopting this report .
Mr President , Commissioner , the European Union ' s regional policy has , until now , not been able to interpret , in any significant way , the existing differences in our inhabitants ' incomes .
We have a serious situation in which in the European Union today , there is a genuine link between unemployment and poverty , as demonstrated by the very worrying fact that unemployment has reached , on average , 23.7 % in the regions worst affected , regions which also happen to be poor areas , whilst in the 25 regions with the lowest unemployment , corresponding to the richer areas , unemployment stands at just 4 % .
Given this situation , the report approved by Parliament must highlight the need for measures that aim unequivocally to fight relative poverty and unemployment : measures such as the appropriate use of structural funds for these purposes , which are often misspent , with centralised state policies and the modernisation of telecommunication and communication systems , with the particular aim of integrating the least developed regions into the Trans-European rail Networks , which are due in 2007 .
There should also be measures that respect and develop the resources and capabilities of these countries ' agriculture and fisheries , which are often harmed by the European Union ' s own insensitive policies , as well as the promotion of active policies to create jobs , particularly for women and young people . Only through the decisive application of this kind of measure will we be able to overcome social and regional inequality , which is not the historical product of inherent defects but of marginalisation and economic policies which have had harmful effects .
Mr President , Commissioner , Mr Berend ' s report is precisely in line with the strategy determined by the European Commission inasmuch as the question of increasing competitiveness is brought right to the fore .
The overarching objectives of the structural funds such as job creation , boosting equality of opportunity , increasing the sustainability of employment and development , are only mentioned in passing .
This attitude appears to me to be unjustified . I would also ask that a great deal more emphasis be placed on these points in the seventh periodic report .
This does not mean that I do not see the need for competitiveness , particularly as I myself am an entrepreneur in an Objective 1 Region , that is in Brandenburg in the Federal Republic of Germany , and am only too aware of the problems and concerns of small and medium-sized enterprises .
It is absolutely crucial that parallel temporary measures be introduced in the Objective 1 Regions , that is to say job creation measures , special programmes for supporting employment opportunities for women and initiatives to help people set up their own business .
They are supported by appropriate European Union structural fund activities .
Supporting only the competitiveness of companies will never be able to compensate for the envisaged cohesion between economic and social development , simply because there is no basis for a self-supporting upturn in these Objective 1 Regions .
After all , the knowledge that economic development alone does not help to combat unemployment substantiates the fact than an increase of at least 3 % in gross domestic product is needed to create any additional jobs at all .
Concentrating to the exclusion of all else on supply and demand-orientated economic policy is not the answer .
And those that do pursue such a policy must invest in expansion for the most part and , to a lesser extent , in rationalisation .
It is imperative for this to go hand in hand with a demand-orientated economic policy if we are to have any chance at all of improving the social situation in these areas .
The situation varies to an enormous degree throughout the regions .
In other words , what is needed is a number of accompanying measures if anything at all is to be accomplished there .
For example , these would be measures for vocational training , for further education , for re-integrating people who have already been excluded from the production process , for the flexibilisation of working time and working time arrangements , in order to bring about a definite improvement in the integration of personal and social aspects and perhaps also to promote employment opportunities for women again .
Mr President , my compliments to the rapporteur for his in-depth report .
The key goal of the structural funds is to strengthen social and economic cohesion between the regions within the European Union .
By stimulating a diversity of investments , the European Union is endeavouring to increase the GDP per capita and to boost employment .
From the sixth periodic report on the regions , one can draw the hesitant conclusion that these incentives do not always have the desired effect .
The efforts made in order to drive up the GDP per capita in Objective 1 regions do not always result in such an increase , not really a satisfying result over a period during which , certainly over the past couple of years , there has been economic growth .
As indicated by the rapporteur , the effects of the structural measures , on the other hand , are minimal as far as employment is concerned .
Some reservation about the effectiveness of Community aid is therefore called for .
Also , the observation that the disparities between regions within Member States sometimes even become more pronounced raises serious questions .
Mr President , it therefore seems worthwhile and necessary to focus attention on both national and regional authorities , especially in connection with boosting employment .
It is , after all , they who have most knowledge about the regions which fall under their remit .
By allowing them to develop tailor-made plans for the relevant regions and , if necessary , tying this in with financial aid , a higher return can be achieved .
Surely this must be the ultimate goal .
I am therefore in favour of the Commission delegating the practical details and implementation of measures to the Member States and regions .
Following on from this , it is probably also more meaningful , with regard to the financial aid to regions , to give Member States more say anyway .
By shifting the criteria from the regions to the Member States , we can avoid a great deal of problems later on .
Finally , I would like to draw attention to the position of the Central and Eastern European countries .
The report shows that , in general , they are a long way behind EU countries , especially in terms of GDP per capita .
With the planned accession of a large number of these countries in the foreseeable future , it is a matter of urgency to review the current structural policy .
I would like to take this opportunity to follow the example of others and call on the Commission to submit proposals for reform sooner rather than later .
Mr President , Commissioner , following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part .
For example , whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased , there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect .
Equally , unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all , indeed they rose in some cases .
I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently .
Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries .
Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment , then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development , improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training .
Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base .
If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term , then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed .
We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate .
Mr President , Commissioner , my thanks go to the rapporteur for handling this very important report , because developments in the social and economic situation will decide to what extent the citizens of Europe will judge that we have been successful in our work .
This issue , which has an impact on their everyday life , is a key issue as regards EU credibility .
It has to be conceded that the EU has already aided , I would say quite magnificently , the development of poor countries .
I remember what Portugal and Greece used to be like when I drove through those countries for the first time twenty-five years ago .
In this connection , French speakers would speak of a " coup de chapeau " : in other words , I take my hat off to the EU .
The EU really deserves such a gesture , but differences between rich and poor areas within countries are still too great .
What is the result ?
People react by voting with their feet and go where they can earn a crust .
Consequently , we have to build schools , hospitals , and the whole infrastructure for the same people in the same country many times over .
This is very costly and it also causes very great social problems .
Most people , however , would like to live in the area in which they were born and raised , if they were given the chance to , in other words , if there was work there .
We must give them this opportunity .
This is a moral obligation the EU and all of us have .
The solution , as I see it , lies in clearly encouraging entrepreneurship .
By entrepreneurship I do not simply mean the ownership of business , but creating will .
I mean the attitude where a person wants to get on in life , whether he or she is an employee , the owner of a business or an official .
What is a fair society ?
One in which someone from a modest background can get on in life so as to make life a little easier for his or her children .
In this way , positive development of the regions is also possible , because people will start business and will work if they are given the chance .
Finally , I would say that in this matter we should learn a lesson from America , where hard work is still in fashion and success is an indication of ability and not the object of envy , as it often is here in Europe .
Mr President , Commissioner , as my time is limited , I shall get straight to the point .
Firstly , let me make a statement of fact : the fruits of growth are not distributed equitably within the Union .
The most remote regions , still hard hit by catastrophic unemployment rates , offer one example of this .
In Reunion , for example , the rate is 37 % .
This is not a situation related to the economic climate , however ; rather it is a structural problem , created by our remoteness , our insularity , in short , our own specific personality .
The principle of specific , exceptional treatment was envisaged in Article 299 ( 2 ) of the Treaty of Amsterdam in order to deal with such cases .
It only remains to put this principle into practice .
The Commission document expected to be ready in December 1999 was delayed until January , then February , and the initial thinking does not fill me with much optimism .
I therefore appeal formally to the Council and the Commission .
As regards taxation , state aid , the Structural Funds and defending our traditional products , practical measures characterised by daring and ambition must be planned as a matter of urgency .
If these do not materialise , then , unfortunately , convergence and cohesion will remain no more than words for us , and it is to be feared that the structural policy undertaken in our regions , despite the size of the amounts committed , will end in failure .
Thank you very much , Commissioner .
The debate is closed .
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m.
( The sitting was closed at 8.25 p.m. )
Adoption of the Minutes of the previous sitting
The Minutes of yesterday ' s sitting have been distributed .
Are there any comments ?
Mr President , I respond to an invitation yesterday afternoon by the President of the House to speak on behalf of my group on a matter referred to in the Minutes .
I refer to item 11 on the order of business .
Firstly , I believe the issue raised by the President of the Socialist Group yesterday about the reinstatement of the debate with the President of the Commission on the five-year strategic programme was sufficiently important for other speakers who wished to comment briefly on that matter to have been accommodated .
I wish to express that view even if I respectfully disagreed and voted against the proposal of the President of the Socialist Group .
The second point I would like to make - and which I would have wished to make yesterday before the vote - is that this Parliament , as other speakers remarked yesterday , can only really have an effect if it works in close cooperation and synergy with the European Commission .
We should also have the humility to recognise that , if we wanted to have a strategic debate accompanied not just by a presentation and elucidation by the President of the Commission , but also by a five-year programme , we should have the mechanisms in place more than just a week in advance of the debate in this House , so as to be able to discuss and convey in due time to the Commission what our wishes were .
There is one basic lesson I would like us to learn from this .
When there are major set-piece debates scheduled between this House and the European Commission in the future , we should clear all of our lines on what are our mutual expectations at least one full working month in advance .
There needs firstly to be clarity between all of the groups of this House and then between this House and the Commission .
We should not find ourselves late in the day in the unfortunate position where the one or other institution creates an unnecessary fracture in institutional relationships .
Looking at some of the press reports of last Friday , I believe that the Commission and its President exercised commendable self-restraint in the way they commented publicly .
That is something for which I have a deep appreciation .
I hope that we will learn the lessons and not repeat this unnecessary exercise which I believe was founded on a misapprehension as to what was expected rather than any bad faith on the part of either of the two institutions .
It should not be dramatised into something more than that .
Thank you very much , Mr Cox .
I understand what you are saying .
We have taken note of this .
Mr President , concerning item 11 of the Minutes on the order of business , we agreed yesterday to have the Bourlanges report on today 's agenda .
However , it was withdrawn from the Committee on Budgets last night without being discussed or voted on .
It therefore needs to be withdrawn from today 's agenda .
Mr Wynn , that makes sense .
The report is hereby withdrawn from the agenda .
Mr President , regarding Mrs Lynne 's comments yesterday about health and safety in this building , I presume she was talking about the drains because there is a dreadful smell of drains on the fifth floor in the Tower .
This needs to be looked into because it is clearly an indication that something is seriously wrong .
I do not want to drag up the issue of this building endlessly , but this is a serious problem .
Mrs Ahern , we have taken note of this .
I would ask you to bring this specific case , which has to do with the ventilators on a particular floor , to the attention of the Quaestors , who are , in fact , responsible for the matter .
We will also pass this on to our services , however .
Thank you very much .
( The Minutes were approved )
Reform of European competition policy
The next item is the joint debate on the following reports :
A5-0069 / 1999 by Mr von Wogau , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the Commission White Paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty [ COM ( 1999 ) 101 - C5-0105 / 1999 - 1999 / 2108 ( COS ) ] ;
A5-0078 / 1999 by Mr Rapkay , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the European Commission ' s XXVIIIth Report on Competition Policy 1998 [ SEK ( 1999 ) 743 - C5-0121 / 1999 - 1999 / 2124 ( COS ) ] ;
A5-0087 / 1999 by Mr Jonckheer , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the seventh survey on state aid in the European Union in the manufacturing and certain other sectors . [ COM ( 1999 ) 148 - C5-0107 / 1999 - 1999 / 2110 ( COS ) ] ( Report 1995-1997 ) ;
A5-0073 / 1999 by Mr Langen , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the Commission Report on the implementation in 1998 of Commission Decision No. 2496 / 96 / ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry ( Steel Aid Code ) . [ COM ( 1999 ) 94 - C5-0104 / 1999 - 1999 / 2107 ( COS ) ] .
Mr President , Commissioner , today we are engaged in an important debate about the European Union ' s competition policy .
We are debating a highly controversial modernisation proposal for European monopolies law , that is Mr von Wogau ' s report , and it is far more controversial than the vote in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs may have given us reason to believe .
I want to make it quite clear that in this specific case I personally consider the Commission ' s proposal to be wrong and feel that it remains to be seen as to whether we are truly justified in using the term " modernisation " to describe the content of Articles 81 and 82 of the White Paper , or whether in this case it would be more appropriate to use the expression " retrograde step " .
However , we are also discussing the aid report today and the general competition report for 1998 , and my contribution to this joint debate relates to the latter .
But , of course , both the competition report and the aid report share common ground in this White Paper .
It is all about the need for modernisation and the future viability of the European competition policy .
On reading both Commission documents , one learns that 1998 was the year in which the modernisation proposals introduced in 1997 were pursued and even partially completed , which is something our own ongoing parliamentary work has taught us .
Allow me to make two fundamental comments at this juncture . As the competent authority , the Commission , with its logically consistent approach , has again and again served the cause of freedom of competition , not always to the delight of the Member States or enterprises concerned .
It should continue along this path .
But , Commissioner , none of this is to become less complicated in future - one only has to think of the challenges posed by the enlargement of the Union , the deepening of the internal market , technological progress , globalisation .
Indeed , it is not just about modernisation of Community law , more than anything it is about transparency of decisions taken in individual cases , about the possibility of decisions actually being able to implement decisions , for the European competition policy will be dependent on the population ' s acceptance , together with that of the political bodies and enterprises concerned .
Only , without transparency there will be no acceptance , indeed there can be no modernisation without transparency .
The competition report 1998 is not a bad foundation for this but , in fact , there is nothing that could not be further improved upon .
Our motion will give you a great deal of food for thought , Commissioner , but there is one point that I would just like to go into now . Transparency and accountability belong together .
I do not wish to call the distribution of competences between the Commission and Parliament into question .
The Commission is the executive and Parliament ought to have no desire whatsoever to take on this role , for the sake of its own independence ; but Parliament is a supervisory body , and what better forum could there be in which to expound the reasoning behind one ' s decisions than a democratically-elected Parliament , indeed an ongoing parliamentary discussion ?
Here too we should continue along the path we have chosen , strengthening and intensifying it .
There is one thing I would like to make quite clear though . Parliament is a legislative body , but the fact that we have no more than the right of consultation in matters of competition law , of all things , is truly scandalous .
Therefore , I would urge the Council and the Intergovernmental Conference to introduce the codecision procedure into legislation in this area .
I expect the Commission to exploit every available opportunity for parliamentary cooperation and to involve Parliament in doubtful cases , even given the Treaty status quo .
I also expect the Commission to be pro-active in supporting us in our call for codecision in legislative procedures .
This will be a good test as to whether there is reasonable cooperation between the two institutions .
With all due respect for the principle of competition , competition is not , however , an end in itself .
Competition is an instrument and does not always produce ideal solutions .
At the end of the day , one of the fundamental tenets of economic theory is that the market is failing in many respects and anyone who takes issue with this is nothing more than an ideologue .
Competition should bring about balance in supply and demand and should provide for the optimum distribution of economic resources and facts .
But optimum efficiency does not necessarily come about of its own accord .
Framework conditions are indispensable when it comes to preventing abuses , monopolies law being one example .
But on the whole , this only serves to prevent abuses ; framework conditions alone cannot achieve socially legitimate goals in isolation .
Competition yes , restrictions in state aid where necessary and where possible .
However , since state aid forms the lion ' s share of the competition report 1998 I would still like , regardless of Mr Jonckheer ' s report , to say one more thing about it . It is certainly possible , indeed it must be feasible for state aid to be given to small and medium-sized enterprises involved in research and development for the purpose of educating them in regional and environmental policy .
Indeed it must be permissible for state aid to be provided for such purposes , provided it does not lead to unacceptable distortion of competition .
This is precisely the area where it is even more important than it is in monopolies and mergers law for decisions to be comprehensible .
It is not just that we should pillory state aid ; rather our approach must be one of drawing distinctions and we must assess the different types of state aid in accordance with the extent to which they help to achieve the above-mentioned objectives .
My last comment was intended not so much for the Commission as for the Members of the Group of the European People ' s Party .
Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , the report which I have the opportunity to propose to you today is an opinion on the Commission ' s Annual Report on the state aid in force within the European Union and for which the Community is authorised under Articles 87 , 88 and 89 of the Treaties .
The Commission report is essentially a descriptive report detailing the development of state aid in the manufacturing sector and certain other sectors , according to various typologies , such as the method of financing and the objectives pursued .
Let me refer you to the explanatory statement for the quantitative aspects of the report and simply mention at this point that the annual level of state aid , on average , for the period under review , is in the order of EUR 95 billion , corresponding to a reduction in the order of 13 % in relation to the period 1993-1995 , a reduction which is essentially due to a reduction in aid in the Federal Republic of Germany .
To put it plainly , the level of state aid declared , roughly speaking , is generally stable during the period under discussion and comes to approximately 1.2 % of Community GDP or more or less the equivalent , coincidentally , of the Community budget for one year .
This being the case , there are considerable disparities between states , which may be measured in various ways , such as , for example , as a percentage of added value and per wage earner .
I think it is also interesting to add state aid and Community aid , which may be assimilated in some way into state aid .
This clearly shows that it is the four countries which benefit from the Cohesion Fund , among other things , which come at the top of the list .
This being the case , let me now come to the proposals made in the report .
We note , first of all , that the committee considers the data , as presented in the Commission ' s annual report , to be in too aggregated a form to enable an in-depth evaluation of state aid policy which is simultaneously legitimate , sensitive to national interests and extensive in terms of compliance with the rules of competition , pursuant to the actual terms of the Treaty .
The Commission can only collate and analyse the data provided by the Member States .
It is therefore down to the states and regions to ensure the quality of the data provided , and our committee considers that additional efforts must be made in this respect .
It is in this spirit that our parliamentary committee for example , has championed the longstanding idea of a public register of state aid , accessible via the Internet .
Having better , more detailed information available , particularly with regard to the objectives pursued and the results recorded , must make it possible for the European Commission to itself proceed or to commission in a regular manner studies of the social and economic evaluation of national and regional state aid policies .
And insofar as such studies already exist , to publish more openly its own comments with regard to the objectives of the Treaties , which are not only to ensure the competitivity of the European economy , but also sustainable development and economic and social cohesion .
By stressing , primarily , the quality of the information provided , our debate in committee , and hence the report which it is my honour to present to you , avoided a simplistic response in the form of an a priori statement that the level of state aid was , in absolute terms , either too high or not high enough .
Most committee members have sought rather to find a balance between , on the one hand , the need to see that both states and businesses comply with the competition rules and , on the other hand , acknowledgement of the value of such aid with a view to contributing to the objectives of the Treaty , particularly , as I have said already , as regards sustainable development , research and development and economic and social cohesion .
This being the case , various amendments to the rapporteur ' s initial draft report were adopted in committee , particularly highlighting the need for effective reimbursement of aid found to be illegal as well as the establishment of a league table of results .
Seven amendments have been retabled for this plenary sitting .
Most of them are an expression of the political differences among ourselves regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of state aid , in view of the inadequacies , acknowledged or not , of private investment alone , the market failures or inadequacies of the market .
There is in particular one amendment , let me point out , concerning the energy sector , which , in my capacity as rapporteur , I see as particularly important .
I should like to conclude this presentation , Commissioner , by stressing two things : firstly , a concern of the members of the committee and , secondly , a demand of our committee .
The concern involves the pre-accession process for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe , in terms of competition policy and state aid .
This is undoubtedly a complex issue , and one where we should like to see the Commission informing us of the latest development in the matter , particularly in terms of the capacity of the economies involved in the accession process to comply with competition rules and , as far as state aid is concerned , the need , in all probability , to have specific rules on state aid used to assist restructuring of their sectors .
And finally , in conclusion , our demand regarding the future responsibilities of the European Parliament in the matters we are discussing , competition policy and state aid , in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference .
As you know , Commissioner , our report argues that the codecision procedure should apply in the case of basic legislation on state aid .

Mr President , Commissioner , my contribution to today ' s debate concerns the steel aid code , that is the state aid in Europe granted in accordance with this code and which was assessed by the Commission .
There were a total of 27 cases in 1998 and the Commission submitted its own report on these .
The ECSC Treaty is due to expire shortly .
Hence , what we must focus on today is the question as to how state aid is to be managed in future .
The European Commission ' s decisions , which feature in the report , are welcomed by the European Parliament , as is the decision to ask for the money back in specific cases , thus applying Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty .
The competitiveness of the European steel industry also forms the subject of the Commission ' s most recent communication , which we have not yet debated in Parliament .
As in other sectors , the general ban on state aid according to Article 87 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty also applies to the iron and steel industry .
According to this article , state aid is irreconcilable with the common market , in principle .
Exemptions are only permitted in precisely defined cases .
Under Article 88 , the Commission is obliged to supervise state aid .
In 1998 , the largest case concerned the supply of company capital totalling EUR 540 million to the PREUSSAG in Germany .
Furthermore , the Member States must give the Commission advance warning with regard to their intentions concerning state aid .
The rules pertaining to the steel industry were drawn up on 18 December 1996 .
These stipulate that state aid can only be awarded to the steel industry in particular , precisely-defined cases i.e. those involving aid for research and development , aid for environmental protection , social security to ease the closure of steelworks and aid to help non-competitive enterprises cease trading altogether .
In addition , there is a special provision of up to EUR 50 million for Greece .
However , there were obviously problems with the practical administration of the steel aid code over the past few years that were not brought fully to bear in the report .
As far as Parliament is concerned , it is important for us to waste no time in getting down to a debate on the regulations that are to succeed this state aid code once it has expired .
There must be no watering-down of the existing principles underlying the steel aid code .
No one wants an unimpeded subsidy competition in Europe .
This would be to the considerable disadvantage of the internal market , regardless of the fact that the steel industry has undergone consolidation in the past few years .
Consequently , Parliament believes it is necessary for the steel aid code to be amended in the light of the industry ' s claims about unequal treatment , and for the Commission to provide the Council with follow-up regulations .
We all know that so far the Council has dragged its feet with regard to follow-up regulations of this kind .
The reason for this is that people are under the impression that once the steel aid code expires , they will be able to do their own thing again without the inconvenience of the European Commission ' s supervision .
We therefore demand that once the Treaty expires , steel aid must be regulated by a Council regulation according to Article 94 , for that is the only way to create the necessary legal validity and clarity .
This is the only way to enforce the strict ban on all aid not covered by the code .
A Council regulation that is directly applicable law must also be observed by the regional governments .
What we need to avoid doing in the future is compromising competition conditions and disturbing the balance in the markets .
We also need to criticise the Commission ' s practice of approving multiple aid packages for steel enterprises which in their view , do not fall within the categories of the code , even given the fact that the European Court of Justice approved this unequal treatment where certain individual decisions were concerned .
The Commission will be called upon , in a report that has yet to be compiled for the year 1999 , to give a detailed explanation of its active role in the elaboration of restructuring plans and approved exemptions , thus enabling a proper assessment of the overall situation to be made .
Once the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted the draft report unanimously with two abstentions , I would ask that we make full use of this opportunity , which we have ourselves created , in plenary sitting .
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , the internal market is not complete .
Subsidies , monopolies and barriers to competition are still impeding markets and development alike .
National governments provide subsidies and promise that this is the last time , but then it happens again .
Subsidies distort allocations , both within and between countries .
A successive phasing out of State aid is required , and more and more markets must be opened up to competition . This applies to those which have been turned into monopolies , both private and public .
Public monopolies are , more often than not , phased out reluctantly .
Increased competition and newly established organisations should be able to provide significant benefits in terms of welfare , including within the spheres of education , health care and social services .
Public monopolies must be replaced by competitive structures .
Europe must be modernised , made more entrepreneurial in spirit and adapted in such a way that it becomes a more competitive environment for consumers and companies .
Effective competition pushes prices down and raises standards of living .
It is precisely upon price levels that consumer policy has failed to focus sufficiently . In fact , competition policy and consumer policy belong together .
The internal market is the basis for our work .
Its legislation is to apply equally to all , to large and small countries alike .
A systematic survey of the various national regulations is needed if barriers to competition are to be dismantled . The EU ' s own regulations too may therefore need to be analysed .
The new model now being tested by the Commission ought not to lead to a process of nationalisation pure and simple which would undermine the established competition policy .
In order to be effective , it must be well anchored in the Member States ' national authorities .
In six months ' time , it may be appropriate to carry out an analysis of the outcome and also to look more closely at the new situation ' s effects upon the Commission ' s role .
The question of how best to make further progress has so far been solved through the idea of holding an inter-institutional congress which will open up an unbiased debate adopting a broad perspective and involving representatives of different interests .
This will provide the opportunity to establish new principles or to return to the more radical changes which have been discussed . There will also be the opportunity to find new common solutions and to analyse amendments from the committee debate .
The law must be correctly applied in matters of competition .
Wrongly applied competition policy may cause losses in the legal sphere and interfere with the right of ownership , which is an important and basic principle we should stand up for .
We have a quite exciting debate in front of us .
A conference where the issues are properly debated will make it possible to straighten out misunderstandings , at the same time as perhaps improving upon certain points .
Parliament and the Commission can together increase their efforts to achieve an effective competition policy and so create new opportunities and new resources for our citizens .
In fact , in my own constituency of Stockholm , we have many good local examples of increased supply and improved quality which have arisen precisely because of exposure to competition in areas which were previously total monopolies .
We would encourage a continuation of the open debate which has been strengthened in the course of consideration of the reports by Mr von Wogau and Mr Rapkay .
We hope that the legal points of view will also be accorded the importance which is only reasonable in a state based on the rule of law .
Mr President , as a new Member I am pleased to be able to make my maiden speech here today , even though there has been a delay .
I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteurs Mr von Wogau , Mr Langen , Mr Rapkay and Mr Jonckheer , as well as the Commission , for their excellent cooperation .
Competition is certainly fundamental to the social market economy and European competition policy is a success story ; take the energy and telecommunications sectors , where there has been a demonstrable lowering of prices and improvement in quality of service .
All this is to the good of the consumer .
But we have now arrived at a point where we need to develop competition policy further .
The Commission has put forward a new White Paper on this containing two key points : dropping the obligation to notify and retrodisplacement of law enforcement .
Dropping the obligation to notify will mean less red tape and administration costs , at any rate .
At the same time , this change of system will also lead to more onus being placed on the individual in the business world , of course .
It will no longer simply be a case of submitting papers and having them approved ; for one thing , each person will have to take responsibility themselves , and that is probably why there is unease about this in other quarters .
However I believe that we should use this opportunity for Europe to set down a marker for less red tape .
The second point relates to the retrodisplacement of law enforcement .
If we are to create a culture of law in Europe , then there is no doubt that the law must be applied not only by the Commission , by central bodies , but also by national authorities , by national courts .
We are not discussing the fact that although every EU law is only ever decided on centrally , it is precisely the adaptation phase where we will experience a lack of legal certainty .
It will certainly be necessary to develop an instrument for this in the anticipated legislative procedure that will enable enterprises to enjoy legal certainty and to have recourse to the Commission in this matter .
The way to a European monopolies commission must be kept clear , something that will certainly form a subject for future discussion .
But we need there to be more transparency in the competition policy .
Parliament must have more involvement and I also believe that if we were to introduce a register in which we could ascertain what state aid is being granted , then this would encourage the Member States to be more disciplined .
However , when it comes to what the future holds for competition , there are two issues dear to my heart .
One is subsidiarity .
We all hold the view that competition is vital to the economy and requires there to be efficiency , and I believe we should also permit competition in the regions .
Competition between the regions will certainly strengthen rather than weaken the European Union .
I would cite , by way of example , the issue of job creation schemes , savings banks and regional banks , and G?tesiegel .
Here , a region has , by its own efforts , created a means of marketing its own products .
This own initiative must not be destroyed by European intervention .
I believe there is also a need to raise the de minimis regulation .
We should do everything within our power to force the regions into a situation where they have to compete with each other .
My second point relates to discussion about competition and the social market economy , although I am not going to talk about market failure just now .
I have already referred to the regional and savings bank sector , but I would just like to focus on a matter one hears again and again in certain quarters .
These days , someone who lives in an old people ' s home is accommodated within the social field .
However , I could also regard them as a customer , and I believe we should enter into rather clear and timely discussion on the ways in which the social field , that is evolved structures , stifle competition .
Apart from that , I could refer to any customers , any sector , as customers , and thereby have a highly destructive effect on social fields .
To conclude , I would just like to say something on the principle of subsidiarity . I believe it to be of vital importance that where Member States allow regions and local authorities to raise taxes , they should continue to be able to do so and not be subject to across- the-board regulation by Europe .
Thank you very much , Mr Radwan .
I would like to congratulate you on what is referred to in German parliamentary-speak , inappropriately in your case , as a maiden speech .
Mr President , Commissioner , I am speaking on behalf of my fellow Member , Robert Goebbels , who is unable to attend due to a political commitment .
Within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , the Jonckheer report has given rise to bitter controversy on the subject of the operation of the market .
A slim right-wing majority succeeded in removing any reference to market failures .
Even if the majority in this House were to adhere to this ultraliberal idea of a supposedly perfect market , it would not make any difference to the real world .
Economic relationships in the real world adequately demonstrate that eliminating all public intervention in the market does not in any way bring about perfect competition and the optimum distribution of resources .
While , since the dawn of time , the market has been the key forum for human interchange , it has never been perfect .
The market favours the short term and immediate profits .
On the market , the balance of power between supply and demand are generally to the detriment of the weakest parties , consumers and workers .
In order to function , the market needs rules .
The necessary and valuable spirit of initiative must be offset by a sense of responsibility towards society .
We European Socialists are in favour of a market economy with a social purpose .
The market is not an end in itself ; it must help to improve the human condition .
The European Union or individual States must not take over from economic operators , but public authorities must define the rules and objectives which enable the economy to develop in a sustainable fashion .
Finally , aid can enable restructuring , offer training , save jobs and thus know-how .
The main objective of the Union ' s competition policy cannot be to reduce the overall level of aid .
This aid must be aligned with the objectives of the Union , particularly economic and social cohesion , sustainable development and research .
The Commission must track down the illegal aid and the aid which actually hinders the internal market .
It would be a serious mistake to eliminate all public aid .
The Internet is not a product of the market , but the result of research financed by the American army .
The World Wide Web , which has enabled the meteoric development of the information society , was developed by CERN in Geneva , once again with public aid .
The German Government ' s intervention to save the Holzmann group was criticised as an unjustifiable constraint upon the market economy .
President Duisenberg even attempted to attribute the weakness , the entirely relative weakness of the euro in relation to the dollar to this state interventionism .
I did not hear Mr Duisenberg criticising the intervention of the American monetary authorities to save the hedge fund , LTCM .
Wishing to save 60 000 jobs is , apparently , a sin against the market , but saving capital does not seem to present any problem for the advocates of the free market .
Public monies are used in order to repair the damage caused by international speculation , as was the case in Mexico , Asia and Brazil .
Human labour , on the other hand , is considered to be a simple factor in the equation .
We Socialists reject the liberals ' na?ve optimism on this point .
We want a true culture of competition in Europe .
The state hand must still be clearly seen to regulate the market and the Commission must act as judge .
Mr President , Commissioner , I want to begin by thanking Mr Rapkay for a good report and constructive cooperation .
I want to thank you , Commissioner Monti , for your outstanding cooperation and I want to tell you that , as we enter the new millennium , you have an especially important role . It is your job to tidy up the mess left by national governments .
These may well have grand visions when it comes to competition policy , but their capacity to wreak havoc seems boundless .
Let me mention the latest examples we have seen : Holzmann , a company which receives considerable aid from the German Government ; sawmills in former East Germany ; and , especially , aid to shipyards .
These are three areas in which many Danish companies are experiencing major problems and are being squeezed out of their markets .
I want to say to Mr Poos that I very much agree with Mr Duisenberg that these examples show that some EU Member States are not in a position to restructure their economies and , to that extent , are helping to undermine the value of the euro .
The Group of the European Liberal , Democrat and Reform Party has tabled 80 amendments in the committee , all concerning state aid .
These are amendments which we believe will lead to transparency and openness , which is very important with a view to making the internal market work .
I should like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the committee for supporting the amendments tabled by the Group of the European Liberal , Democrat and Reform Party .
As I say , our amendments concern transparency , and I should like to emphasise the amendment which urges the Commission to propose uniform criteria and conditions for the type of state aids we consider to be lawful , specifically in order to ensure that companies can predict what their situation will be .
Another issue is that of what we are to do when state aid is declared unlawful .
How do we ensure that unlawful state aid is paid back ?
At present , there are no common rules in this area , and we vigorously urge the Commission to make a point of harmonising the rules on repayment .
This is the way forward if we are to ensure uniform conditions of competition .
Finally , we propose keeping both a register , as mentioned by a number of my fellow MEPs , and also a scoreboard showing where the Member States at present stand with regard to state aid .
You have shown us the way , Mr Monti , with the single market scoreboard .
It was this which inspired us to propose the same thing with regard to state aid .
I very much hope that you , Commissioner Monti , will support these amendments , and I look forward to your comments and to finding out where you stand on this matter .
To conclude , I want to welcome the Commission ' s XVIIIth Report on Competition Policy , on which , once again , a good deal of work has been done .
But , as I have already mentioned , our overriding objectives ought still to be those of transparency and openness .
There is still a need to tighten up in the areas mentioned , and there is therefore good reason for continuing to work resolutely towards solving the problems concerning the lack of transparency and openness in the area of state aid .
This is especially necessary in relation to the forthcoming enlargement of the Union , and I should like to thank Mr Jonckheer who , in his report , has considered very thoroughly the problems associated with enlargement and with ensuring that the applicant countries are able to meet our criteria , as well as with ensuring common conditions of competition .
As Liberals and Greens , we clearly have different opinions on how the world should look , but we are well on the way to agreement as to our objectives , and we shall try to find reasonable solutions to our problems .
Mr President , Commissioner , there are just two questions which must be answered .
Are state aid to business or inter-company agreements legitimate in a market economy , and who must supervise these exceptions to the absolute rules of the market economy ?
Regarding the first point , we say quite clearly that , in order to take into consideration the requirements of sustainable development which the European Union has endorsed , it is essential that , in some instances , there is state aid to businesses , be it in the form of tax exemptions , special taxation or even direct aid .
It is also legitimate for there to be inter-company agreements and voluntary restraint agreements , since all these agreements make it possible to reduce the detrimental effects of competition on social or ecological requirements .
So our clear response is that , yes , such aid and such agreements are legitimate , but we say that every single one of these agreements must be expressly justified .
The von Wogau report proposes referring supervision of the legitimacy of individual cases to national level .
We feel this is relatively dangerous , but all the same we shall vote in favour of it because we recognise that the Commission cannot do everything .
We demand that the greatest possible transparency should be in place and that greater powers of investigation be granted to the Commission in order to check the legitimacy of such exceptions after the fact .
Mr President , once again we are debating the European Union ' s competition policy .
But let us stop to consider the circumstances in which this debate is taking place and the conclusions to which it should bring us .
The overriding features of today ' s economy are massive mergers and acquisitions involving huge companies with a market monopoly and the emergence of frighteningly powerful multinational groups .
Should we not be discussing this issue ?
We need a competition policy which can and will introduce controls on the activities of these private-sector monopolies .
Certain sectors of European industry , such as the shipbuilding industry , air transport and the steel industry , which have been hard hit by existing competition policy , have suffered tremendously .
They have lost their status , and a significant slice of the world market and hundreds of thousands of workers have been made redundant .
When will we debate that ?
The scandalous concentration of power in sectors of strategic importance is giving speculative multinational groups economies the size of entire states , and Member States of the Union at that .
And yet , we keep on weakening the public sector and we are ready and willing to tighten competition policy yet further by qualifying public procurement contracts placed with public-sector corporations as state aid .
At the same time , unemployment is spiralling as a result of the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs .
Workers are facing a massive attack on their employment and social rights .
Consumers see their standard of living being eroded , poverty spreading and the public sector and production base in most countries in the Union being dismantled and dissolved in the name of unadulterated and catastrophic competition , in the name of the absolute market economy and the promotion of the monopolistic interests of big business .
We consider the competition policy to be responsible for all this and are totally opposed to it .
Mr President , Commissioner , in the course of this pivotal year , prior to the changeover to the single currency , the Commission has deployed every effort to ensure the birth of the euro in a favourable environment .
The competition policy has , as far as these resources permitted , contributed to this event .
For our part , we remain staunchly opposed to the single currency which , far from bringing us the advantages and flexibility of a shared currency , imprisons us in an artificial straitjacket , which has been imposed on the peoples of Europe .
Having said that , governing means planning . It also means being responsible and , in this new context which has been forced upon us , competition law naturally has an essential role to play .
In this area , the Commission has given priority to a number of routes of action : acting on the structure of markets by actively combating anti-competitive practices , by refocusing its departments ' supervisory activities only upon matters with a manifest Community interest and by affirming its intention to modernise competition law .
As regards state aid , it is essential to ensure that regulations are not made more complex , and the introduction of a public register , where all aid would be recorded , does not seem advisable to us since this onerous commitment would quite naturally run counter to the attempts to simplify bureaucratic constraints .
Finally , on the subject of modernising the implementation of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty , we do not think that decentralised application would necessarily be going in the right direction .
The Commission is , in fact , retaining not only the power to take matters out of the jurisdiction of national authorities , but clearly obliging the national jurisdictions to avoid disputing the decisions of the Commission at all .
National states would thus become the secular arm of the Commission regarding observance of the application of rules which they do not control .
In conclusion , I would say that while some measures are heading in the right direction , we shall of course remain vigilant in order to prevent the snowballing of Federalism which , if it were realised , would be to the detriment of Europe and the sovereignty of the states .
Mr President , Commissioner , we have a basically positive view of the Commission ' s White Paper on competition , particularly as regards the abolition of the system of notification and authorisation , but we are also puzzled by several things .
First of all , there is a risk that the decentralisation of powers , though necessary in many ways , will cause an abnormal increase in competition-related initiatives , and that some people will be tempted to use competition law , not as a means to be resorted to when all else fails , of ensuring the smooth and predictable functioning of the markets , but for the purposes of as an instrument for economic and industrial policy , planning and interference with the natural workings of the markets themselves , or even for protectionist purposes .
In this respect , we should heed the words of von Eieck , and doubtless also those of the great Italian liberal Bruno Leoni , who warned precisely against the risks of an abnormal increase in anti-competition policies .
State interference in the economy is , even today , still to blame for the most serious hindrances placed in the way of the market , competition and freedom of choice for European users and consumers .
There is State aid for businesses - we have already discussed this , there is still a strong public presence in the economy - it is estimated that the Italian Treasury controls 15 % of stock exchange capitalisation ; governments and central banks place obstacles in the way of mergers and acquisitions ; and there has been much talk in recent weeks about Vodafone ' s bid for Mannesmann and the bailout of Holzmann .
Finally , Commissioner , we cannot forget that large sections of the economy are still firmly in the hands of the state , ranging from state television , which is funded on a mandatory basis by the taxpayer , and the Post Office , to some compulsory insurance schemes , including health and social welfare systems , which are managed by inefficient state monopolies which leave no-one but the wealthy user with any other option .
Commissioner , I am quite familiar with the constraints imposed by the Treaties , but I believe that , it must be emphasised once again that the European economy is finding it hard to compete with the American economy , especially because of insufficiently open markets and a lack of genuine competition .
What is being done may well be very important , but it is still not sufficient .
Mr President , we are holding a special debate : on competition policy and state aid , the government ' s right and left hand , so to speak .
Whilst the EMU criteria are forcing Member States to curb expenditure , the high level of state aid to industry has so far remained in place .
This is understandable , because it is highly likely that Member States which start to cut back on state aid will cause companies to leave , with adverse effects on employment .
But , at the same time , this is not understandable because bad management and non-viable jobs should not be funded by taxpayers ' money .
In principle , only horizontal regulations are permissible because they do not distort , or hardly distort , competition .
The rapporteur ' s Amendments Nos 6 and 7 , therefore , deserve our support .
Amendments Nos 1 and 5 make reference to the phenomenon of market failure because the market instrument in itself does not result in the ideal society .
Vulnerable people find themselves hardest hit .
Market forces must be employed in a sophisticated manner to do full justice to the responsibility of citizens and companies .
If this comes to nothing , then the government has to step in .
The Commission ' s White Paper on modernising competition policy seems more like a discussion paper .
The plea in favour of decentralisation in order to lighten the load within the Directorate-General on Competition is a kind gesture , but the way in which the Commission would like to carry this through would lead to the judiciary being stretched .
This would be at the expense of legal certainty within industry .
Does the pressure of work within the Commission really decrease when national judges are required to report to the Commission ?
What is the Council ' s opinion on this and is the Commissioner prepared to completely reconsider these points ?
Mr President , a White Paper , by definition , is not something you can take or leave .
It is there to generate reactions and the White Paper has certainly succeeded in doing that .
It forms a sound basis for discussion and is to be welcomed in this sense .
I understand where the authors are coming from and I share their views .
I also assume that you , Commissioner , want to honour the reputation of , and the work put in by , your predecessors and that your offices will pursue the same objective .
I cannot imagine the Commission taking initiatives in order to de-Europeanise or re-nationalise in a thorough manner , but I have my concerns and questions nevertheless .
Firstly , these relate to the coherence of the policy ' s application .
In general , I am a great defender of cultural diversity but not in terms of competitiveness within the internal market .
The internal market needs a uniform competition policy , not only in terms of concept , but also in terms of application .
It is true , there are some European regulations and interpretative statements on the way .
The Commission is also said to have the right of evocation and can give guidelines to the national competition authorities .
But I still wonder if we do not run the risk of ending up in a kind of Echternach procession where we will have to take one step back before we are able to take two steps forward .
So , I would like to hear more about how the Commission will guarantee this uniform application in practice and whether you yourself consider the courses outlined from point one hundred onwards in the White Paper to be feasible .
Secondly , I understand the worry of industry regarding legal certainty .
Many dossiers are currently being filed with precisely this concern .
This instrument will fall by the wayside in future .
In the White Paper , you state that the Commission will still issue particular orders which can be used as guidelines , but what will your criteria be for granting such orders one day but not the next ?
Thirdly , I would like to know whether the Commission has looked into the effects its new approach will have on industrial strategy .
I have particular concerns regarding the fate of SMEs which will lose part of their legal and financial protection , as is already the case , one has got to admit , within the new vertical group exemption for the distribution sector .
Fourthly , I would like to be informed of why the Commission does not choose to apply the invalidity penalty in the case of evident infringements of the competition rules .
Fifthly , with the pending enlargement , I wonder whether the candidate counties will be able to play our game .
They are still in training , as it were .
What guarantees do we have that they will grow into first-class players in the league of the internal market ?
Sixthly and lastly , I would remind you of a point that I have already raised in my report on vertical restrictions , namely the legal privilege of company lawyers .
If the Commission implements the White Paper objectives , it seems to me that discrimination within the internal market and between external and internal legal advisers will become more pronounced and hence even less acceptable .
Is the Commission considering taking any action to allow in-house lawyers in all Member States legal privilege ?
Commissioner , I am asking these questions as a defender of the internal market and I hope that , in this sense , we are all partners and that the discussion between these partners does not remain sterile but can bear fruit .
Mr President , I would like , in beginning my speech regarding the White Paper , to congratulate the rapporteur , Mr von Wogau .
The fact that the Group of the Party of European Socialists is very much in agreement with your report is clearly demonstrated by the fact that only one amendment has been presented during this procedure .
We are , therefore , in agreement with the report , Commissioner , as well as the broad outlines of the White Paper .
Since the Treaty entered into force , Community law on competition has been one of the tenets of Community policy .
After almost forty years of being in force , these rules were beginning to show signs of exhaustion .
For this reason , modernisation was essential .
That modernisation came to be particularly necessary for five reasons .
Firstly , the authorisation system ; secondly , decentralised application ; thirdly , procedural rules ; fourthly , judicial application ; and fifthly and finally , excessive red tape .
The system of individual approvals needed urgent reform , as was unanimously requested by specialised companies , academics and lawyers .
I have not attended a single forum of specialists in competition law which has not requested a change to the system .
A system , such as the current one , which is capable of making so few decisions , be they approvals or prohibitions , is something less than a valid system .
National competition authorities were able to apply Articles 81 ( 1 ) and 82 for some time .
However , they could not apply Article 81 ( 3 ) , which , to a certain extent , prevented the coherent application of Article 81 ( 1 ) .
You will know that there are currently two preliminary issues before the Court of Justice , both brought by German courts , which question the feasibility of applying 81 ( 1 ) without being able to apply 81 ( 3 ) .
A reform of this point was therefore also necessary .
The procedure in the field of competition is basically contained in Regulation 1762 .
The voices in favour of its amendment were unanimous .
The fact that it did not establish a genuine procedure , that it did not establish time limits , that it did not regulate access for interested parties to the files , or that the right to defence was not properly recognised , were factors which led to the unanimous demand for reform .
The Court of Justice accepted some time ago that Community competition law could be applied by the legal bodies of the Member States and in 1994 , the Commission published a communication on this subject .
It was therefore necessary to facilitate this approach .
One of the most frequent criticisms of Community competition law is its excessive red tape .
As a consequence of the continental legal tradition , consideration of whether certain agreements are anti-competitive or not depends more on an analysis of their clauses than on their effects on the market .
It was therefore necessary to introduce an economic analysis .
The White Paper intends to resolve these problems and we therefore support these proposals .
It is also true that we note certain deficiencies which have come to light in the report .
Amongst these , firstly , is the fact that , despite trying to modernise Articles 81 and 82 , Article 81 and not Article 82 carries exclusive weight . At the moment , with inter-company agreements and the privatisation of monopolies preserving dominant positions and even consolidating them , the combating of abusive conduct is becoming particularly important .
Secondly , Regulation 1762 must be repealed and replaced with a new regulation .
For these reasons , we are going to vote in favour of the report .
However , if some of the amendments are accepted , particularly those presented by the PPE-DE Group , we would consider the report to be stripped of its value and to have become an inconsistent document , lacking in rigour and , in that event , we would reconsider our support .
Mr President , amongst the various issues being dealt with in this joint debate , I would like to comment on the one mentioned by Mr Berenguer , that is to say , the modernisation of competition policy , which is the subject of the Commission ' s White Paper .
Frankly , I believe that this modernisation has been satisfactory .
Through his management , Commissioner Monti achieves good results , as did his predecessor and , clearly , he has established a guarantee which , in parallel with the creation and development of the European internal market , has been capable of establishing the corresponding corrective measures so that the market economy within the Union may work adequately , without the distortions which we economists know may arise when the market is enlarged , as has happened in the European Union since 1993 .
If it functions well , if we are satisfied , if the Commission has basically acted correctly , why the need for the modification ?
Various arguments have been presented in its favour .
Mr Berenguer made a very accurate analysis , justifying the need and the relevant reforms for improving the dynamics of competition , but my concern is to ensure that the standards and criteria which will be applied through the corresponding administrations in the Member States , are truly identical in all regions .
Because , if this is not the case , we will be faced with the paradox that the Commission itself will introduce elements of unfair competition into the functioning of the European internal market .
In that event we would not have moved forward , but rather backwards , in the application of competition policy in the Union .
Mr President , I would like firstly to express my appreciation to the Commission for the improvement represented by the XXVIIIth report on competition policy in the Union , when compared to previous reports .
I would also like to highlight the work carried out by the rapporteur , Mr Rapkay , who has dissected this dense and comprehensive text in such a concise way .
I would also like to fully support his comments on the need to allow the regions - such as the Basque Country , which I represent - a margin for action , by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity .
Nevertheless , I cannot forget the numerous criticisms , both from Member States and from market operators , which , given the broad margin for manoeuvre and discretion enjoyed by the Commission in its evaluation of specific cases , maintain that they suffer from legal insecurity in the absence of clear rules allowing interested parties to anticipate the position of the authorities and thereby make feasible requests for aid aimed at the promotion of economic activity and employment , the planning of company mergers etc .
The only guarantee has been to seek prior favourable approval , through individual cases , which will take more than six or eight months to resolve , an excessively long period , which simply leads to problems of a lack of flexibility , affecting the generation of wealth and employment .
I therefore believe that something is missing and I suggest that we establish more regulations , lay down clear rules , which will benefit all of us : businesspeople , investors , workers and the citizens in general .
Mr President , I would like to stress that , in an age of significant technological changes - just look at what is happening in the information technology sector and other sectors such as energy and transport - safeguarding competition will be of fundamental importance for our future .
From the point of view of economic growth , and therefore of increasing employment and wealth , safeguarding a competition policy in the Member States is becoming a crucial factor , and one that is certainly very important for our future .
This is why I give this report my full support .
Recently , I have noticed that the Commission has been working hard to ensure that this principal is respected in a proper and effective manner , precisely in order to safeguard market flexibility , both for products and for services .
I would emphasise that this is going to be extremely important for our future , for Europe ' s economy , and , above all , for the protection of our wealth and technological development in Europe in general .
Mr President , for British Conservatives the efficient and uniform application of European competition policy is at the core of achieving an effective single market across the whole of the European Union .
It therefore follows that any proposal which suggests major reform of the machinery for competition policy enforcement must be closely and carefully examined .
The truth is that the single market is not yet complete .
During my six months as a Member of this Parliament , I have become acutely aware of the determination of many Members to drive forward what is described as the European project .
We daily hear the need to promote a wider and deeper Europe .
But all this , in effect , is so much rhetoric when we look at the national , regional and local obstacles which continue to block the operation of a true European single market .
That is the context in which I want to consider the Commission 's proposals .
I should like to make it clear that we have the greatest confidence in and respect for Commissioner Monti .
We look to him as the man to root out cartels .
But he would recognise that , as for everybody else , we have to consider his particular proposals and subject them to rigorous examination .
That is something that has been done by our rapporteur on the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs , Mr von Wogau .
I want to congratulate him , sadly in his absence , for the thorough and rigorous way in which he has undertaken the preparation of his report - and also for putting up with my being such a thorn in his side !
He mentioned earlier that the report was carried with a significant majority but not with my support .
So although I may not share his conclusions , I believe he has illustrated in his report many of the issues which the Commission must address .
The first is the potential for renationalisation of competition policy .
I know that the Commission is set against this , but the potential exists .
I remain worried about the capacity of national courts and the capacity of the national competition authorities . I remain worried about the whole operation of the judicial process .
I asked Commissioner Monti the other day what happens if he proves to be wrong and there is an effective renationalisation .
Mr von Wogau said we can look to the European Court .
Well , we in Britain are looking to the European Court at the moment .
We find that the European Court is not able to provide us with interim measures in a certain dispute that we have with France at the moment , in which we have the support of the Commission .
Unless anybody thinks that this is merely a nationalistic point , in the Factortame case , in which the British Government was the defendant , it took ten years for the European Court to give a ruling .
So , judicially , something needs to be done .
I ask the Commission what can be done to speed up implementation in this particular area .
In relation to legal certainty , I endorse the point made by Mrs Thyssen .
It is important that business has legal certainty .
I mentioned this again to Commissioner Monti recently .
He said we must not always be carried along by lawyers .
I must declare an interest as a lawyer but also as a former competition minister in the United Kingdom .
We all have , as it were , our histories to live with , but it is important that business has legal certainty .
I would also ask the Commission whether an analysis has been undertaken of the implications of this change for business : a cost-benefit analysis of the sort that is now becoming so much more European policy .
I know there has been an analysis of the implications for the Commission of the change .
We have been told how , currently , people 's time is being wasted and that the changes , therefore , could be beneficial .
But I really feel that , in the circumstances , we want to know what the implications would be for business .
Finally , we , as British Conservatives , are looking for a change in direction , towards the development of an independent competition authority .
I would like to hear what Commissioner Monti has to say about that .
Mr President , the European Union ' s competition policy has been of central importance since European integration began .
It is an integral part of the tension , inherent in the very concept of European integration , between solidarity and cooperation between Member States , with a view to creating a better and more efficient environment for the people and the economy , and competition , which should provide incentives to improve the competitiveness and future viability of the European Union as an entity .
It is therefore with some justification that competition policy is one of the most important policies .
We can be proud of a European competition culture , for it is this that will make the social market economy a reality .
We can be proud of monopolies and mergers supervision .
However , we must be vigilant in the face of global operators , against whom nation-states are no longer able to impose limits .
That is why we should bear in mind what was said by the French writer Vivienne Forestier , who described the state of the world in terms of the economy ' s reign of terror .
Society is surrendering itself to the economy .
That is precisely what we do not want in the European Union .
We are aware that in this age of strategic alliances and millennium mergers - in 1998 USD 2 400 billion was paid out in connection with take-overs - restrictive practices are being held in check , not just by our own rules but also by bilateral cooperation with the USA or Japan , or others , until we get the international competition law we so badly need .
European competition policy , as we very often forget , is not just important for fair competition as such , but also for prices , growth and employment , and hence for the public .
In common with the other Members , I call for Parliament to have codecision rights where competition law is concerned .
It is essential that this long overdue step be taken .
It is also important to underline the connection between competition policy and consumer protection .
I welcome the fact that Commissioner Monti wants to make progress in this area in the dialogue with the European Parliament , as he does in the dialogue with non-governmental organisations , consumer protection associations and the public .
Greater transparency will also help to achieve public acceptance of decisions relating to competition policy .
Then it is possible to understand that , for example , lower electricity and telecommunications prices are due to European competition policy , and Brussels should not be pilloried when aid decisions are taken which are , of course , bound to cause problems at a particular moment in time or in a local context .
It is particularly important for there to be clarity in relation to competition rules in view of EU enlargement .
Emphasis must also be placed on the fact that a state aid policy - and the Jonckheer report makes this very clear - must continue to afford each state the freedom to define and organise the tasks of the public sector and ownership structures on an independent basis .
At the same time , it must be made clear that aid can serve a useful purpose , with a view to offsetting the deficiencies of the market and furthering Community objectives .
A word on the White Paper : the revision of Articles 81 and 82 represents a change of direction in monopolies policy .
I am opposed to this , unlike the majority of this House and indeed the majority of my own group , because I believe that , in competition policy terms , the directly applicable exception system is in every sense inferior to a system of prohibition unless certain conditions are met , and I believe there is a threat of renationalisation .
The system currently in force creates transparency , affords enterprises legal certainty and has , without a shadow of a doubt , led to discipline and acted as a deterrent on account of the notification requirement .
The problem of overwork highlighted by the Commission is not a sufficient reason for making radical changes to the legal system .
Indeed , it is debatable whether this could be carried through at all without amending the Treaty .
Mr President , I am very glad that Mrs Randzio-Plath mentioned the very important context of our debate because up until now no other speaker has done so .
The advent of the euro at the beginning of last year unleashed enormous competitive forces within European business which are being met by a merger wave of quite unprecedented proportions .
For example , the figures for last year now show that the total value of mergers in the European area was EUR 1.4 trillion , which is seven times the level of merger activity at the peak of the last European merger boom in 1990 .
This poses enormous challenges for competition policy , which I hope it will be able to meet because , for certain , many of those mergers are going to be designed to protect profit margins of the businesses from competition rather than merely to enhance productivity and make those businesses able to operate on a bigger scale .
Commissioner Monti and his colleagues have a tremendous challenge ahead of them and our worries in the ELDR Group are that there should be no weakening in the thrust of competition policy either in the examination of mergers or the monitoring of restrictive practices .
Delegation to national authorities is all very well but we would emphasise what Mr von Wogau said in his report on the need for regular monitoring of national authorities to ensure that there is no slippage in the European element , and , particularly would ask the Commissioner to reassure us that there would be random checks on that .
Mr President , in the limited time I have , I would like to express my support for the work carried out by all the rapporteurs and my agreement with many of the things which have been said here , in particular by Mr Jonckheer , who criticised the excessive gathering of information and the lack of transparency and socio-economic balance in the granting of aid .
I also agree with the criticism that no emphasis has been put on the implementation of Article 82 , especially when we are witnessing abusive conduct in a context of market concentration .
As a Member for the Basque Country , I would like to express my total support for the implementation measures for fair competition in the market .
I say this in case there is any doubt about the criticisms which we have directed at the Commission in general , and Mr Monti , in particular , for its persecution of the incentives to Basque companies and the fact that it considers them to be state aid .
Our discrepancy stems from the fact that the Commission continues to misunderstand the character of the general system and the co-responsibility of our arrangement which gives our Basque fiscal rules the same nature , foundation and aim as the rules of the Member States of the Union , and that they are applied in a general way to all tax-payers who , by virtue of points which fall under an external system of law , are subject to those rules .
Mr President , Commissioner , competition is exactly what we need .
We need competition if there is the least unemployment , for a smooth-running healthcare system , for social justice , for high social standards , and , of course , we also need - these are competition criteria to do with the economy - business management competition so as to achieve highest-quality products , equal market access conditions for all enterprises , and environmentally-friendly products .
In other words , we must succeed in linking the competition criteria that are necessary to the economy with those relating to managerial economics .
I often have the impression , unlike the country I come from - former East Germany - where economic competitiveness is prized above all else and competitiveness relating to managerial economics is disregarded , that very often the reverse is the case ; society thinks almost exclusively in terms of managerial economics .
I say that as an entrepreneur who has a vested interest in this .
But a system cannot function in this way : it will only work if the two aspects go hand in hand .
I will give you an example : the European Union was right to support the Gr?nitz steelworks in Brandenburg , although out of 5 000 jobs only 700 remained .
But these are competitive jobs , for this steelworks is now the number two tool steel manufacturer in the Federal Republic of Germany .
Anyone who would jeopardise production at this steelworks on principle , by demanding the return of the aid that was granted at the time , would not just place the steelworks itself in jeopardy but also one of the region ' s employers that small and medium-sized enterprises are , of course , dependent on too .
It goes without saying that that is not what the European Union ' s competition policy is designed to achieve .
If we want there to be competition then we must establish this link between the requirements of the national economy and the pre-requisites of managerial economics .
Indeed that is the only way to build up regional economic circulation in the under-developed regions that will protect people ' s social welfare and boost purchasing power .
To that end , we must also make it our business to take more account of demand-orientated economic policy as opposed to one focusing heavily on supply .
Mr President , ever since I was elected to this Parliament in 1994 I have never witnessed a report which had such anti-Irish sentiments and overtones as the Jonckheer report which we are debating today .
I would like to quote verbatim from the report : " State aid per capita is highest in Italy , Germany and Ireland . Ireland clearly is in the lead when national and Community regional and social funds are put together . "
I believe that the rapporteur is simply playing with figures .
I find it difficult to understand how he can index regional and social funds into this mathematical equation .
I should like to remind the Member that the European Union has agreed to the new regional aid guidelines for the period 2000 plus .
This was merely an extension of the policy objectives to complete the internal market within Europe .
Regional disparities must be overcome if the internal market is to succeed and prosper .
I welcome the fact that grant aid of 40 % and a top-up of 15 % for SMEs for fixed investment will be permitted for companies setting up in Objective 1 regions in Europe post-2000 .
I remind Mr Jonckheer that Irish companies or foreign companies in Ireland still have to cross two sea masses to reach the mainland European marketplace .
No other Member State is at such a disadvantage .
Mr President , the monopolies ' ban is the key element of functioning competition order in Europe .
The Commission deemed the practical administration relating to the monitoring of the monopolies ' ban to be unsatisfactory , something I would wholeheartedly agree with .
But opinion differs as to the solution .
The Commission ' s proposal does not formally deviate from the monopolies ban but the upshot of this proposal is a transition from a ban with permit reservation to a permit with ban reservation .
In other words , we are making the transition from the principle of banning to that of misuse .
Both I and other MEPs utterly reject such a drastic change of system .
I do not accept that a practical transposition problem should give rise to changing the law .
We would be changing the law to make it executable again , which is something I consider to be unacceptable .
The Commission is giving up its monopoly on exemptions .
Competition restrictions are to be automatically exempted against the background of this planned system of legal exemption , insofar as the provisions of Article 81 ( 3 ) of the Treaty on European Union allow .
The requirement to lodge applications in Brussels will be dropped ; in other words , the Commission will be completely in the dark in future .
This is unacceptable to my mind .
The Commission ' s programme is to be supplemented by enhanced follow-up supervision of the national authorities and Member States ' courts .
But if this takes place in the course of renationalisation then what we will have here is a patchwork quilt of competition policy .
This is unacceptable in my view .
It would weaken a key element of European policy .
The change of system in European monopolies law that the European Commission is contemplating is high risk as far as competition policy is concerned .
There are enough other options in the present system to safeguard open markets and free competition .
In any case , the Commission ' s proposal refers back to old proposals that were put forward as long ago as the fifties and sixties .
There was no majority for this at the time .
Since France laid a huge amount of emphasis on legal exemption at the time , it was damaged by concessions in agricultural policy .
Forty years on , this proposal has again been placed on the table and I am certain that it will create room for manoeuvre for the monopolies , to the detriment of Europe ' s consumers .
I consider this to be unacceptable .
Mr President , in this important debate on competition , I am speaking this morning with particular reference to Mr Langen ' s document on the Steel Aid Code .
As the Court of Justice recognised in 1996 , the steel industry is particularly sensitive to competition-related disturbances .
Indeed , several years ago , this was the conclusion of a report that I compiled on the strengths and weaknesses of the European steel sector .
This is why it was justifiable to set up a system of aid to this sector with the aim of ensuring the survival of successful businesses , even if this was in contradiction of Article 4 of the ECSC Treaty .
This indeed , is the aim of the sixth Steel Aid Code , but at the same time it is important to avoid any infringement of the conditions of competition and any serious disturbance of the markets , hence the importance of regulating such aid .
It is therefore necessary to continue to limit state aid for research , development , environmental protection and cases of company closure .
In the same category of ideas , it is essential that Member States fulfil their obligation to be accountable to the Commission for the aid granted to their steel companies .
The Commission suggests shorter deadlines . I agree with this request .
Like the rapporteur , while I am pleased with the Commission report , nonetheless I deplore the fact that it does not cover all aspects of the aid .
Although the Steel Aid Code is expressed in a very clear way , the Commission has authorised granting steel companies aid which is not covered by the categories stipulated by the Code .
In the interests of equality , either the Code must be applied or it must be modified .
Finally , and in conclusion , Mr President , with the expiry of the ECSC Treaty , the regulations will have to be reviewed since I think that the aid system will have to continue beyond 2002 , and in that case I am in favour of a Council regulation which will ensure security in this area .
We therefore await , and I await , the European Commission ' s proposals on this matter .
Mr President , I am also going to refer to the report by Mr Langen , which concerns aid to the steel industry .
I agree with the rapporteur on two issues .
Firstly , I agree on the need to guarantee equal conditions for aid to all Member States and , secondly , on the need for transparency with regard to this aid .
We agree with the rapporteur regarding his criticism of the fact that , despite the rules laid down in the sixth Steel Aid Code , the Commission has frequently authorised aid to companies which do not correspond to the categories in that Code .
However , the thing that worries us most , Mr President , is the decrease in prices , by 30 % , owing to imports .
The reason for this decrease is unfair competition from South Korea and Taiwan , in the case of steel , as a result of their different working conditions and conditions governing aid .
Orders in the steel industry and the ship-building industry - we also spoke about this a while ago - have decreased drastically , resulting in a loss of jobs .
I live in a region where the ship-building industry now has very serious problems : Asturias .
With global markets , we need global employment laws and global subsidies .
I know this is difficult to achieve now , but if we do not achieve fair employment laws for all workers , here and elsewhere , and we do not secure equitable subsidies for all countries , here and elsewhere , it will be difficult to preserve jobs in Europe and outside it .
Mr President , Commissioner , Director-General , I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report : I welcome the Commission ' s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules , and to propose practical reform measures .
I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau , who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification , indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken , and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion .
The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection , discussion , and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves , the judiciary , the Member States , and above all the SMEs concerned , that need to be clarified .
Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy .
However , it must be " europeanised " taking into account the principle of subsidiarity .
I also welcome , therefore , the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual , without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility .
In practice , only 9 cases were rejected , 94 % of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished , non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines , which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related , staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement
To conclude , I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform : fair competition and equal competition conditions , legal certainty for all enterprises , consistent application of competition policy , procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop , coordination of the national - and to me , independent - competition authorities , close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission , along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law , and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies .
I am in suspense as to how the discussions , which were broadly based , will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal .
The Commission report confirms that , with the exception of Germany , state aid to businesses is increasing .
The Commission finds this worrying only from the point of view of the conditions of competition .
As far as we are concerned , we look at things from the point of view of the interests of the working classes .
Society gains nothing from these massive transfers of public funds to private business .
Take , for example , the car manufacturing sector , where subsidies and state aid of various sorts have increased by 24 % during the reference period .
With what aim ?
Not to save jobs .
All these firms have gone ahead with job cuts and even redundancies .
Not to improve working conditions , for in increasing production with fewer workers , working conditions are made worse .
Did these firms need state aid to survive ?
No , car manufacturers have been making colossal profits for years .
State aid is not only counterproductive because , as the Jonckheer report acknowledges , it gives rise to subsidy hunting with firms relocating from one country to another , but it is unacceptable because it allocates public monies to the enrichment of a handful of private shareholders .
It is because the richest people are being favoured everywhere with state money that throughout Europe social protection is being reduced , public services are being abandoned , hospitals are being closed .
In voting against the Jonckheer report , I wish to assert the need for another policy , to wit , ceasing all aid to private firms and utilising the money thereby saved to develop public services and recruit staff .
Mr President , today ' s debate is extremely important because the principle of competition has probably been the cornerstone of the internal market .
In accordance with the principle of competition , the legislation has implemented Articles 85 to 94 , competition policy in the strict sense , and the revision of all state aid and tax provisions which may affect competition .
Firstly , fiscal provisions of an indirect nature and recently , thanks to Commissioner Monti , there have been direct provisions , the code of good conduct in particular .
This has worked fairly well , but , as in the famous film Casablanca ' time goes by ' and we must adapt the legislation we have been applying until now to the new circumstances .
In this respect I have observed a significant consensus in all the interventions .
Firstly , it is necessary , in drawing up the legislation , to produce clear and complete rules .
It is probably horrendous , especially in this particular raft of legislation , that there are confused rules , regulatory vacuums and rules that only lay down undefined legal concepts .
This is all the worse - as is the case with the second part of this reform - when responsibility for implementing the legislation lies with national authorities .
Thirdly , it seems to me important that the Commission should play a role in resisting the temptation to create independent agencies which would distort the very essence of the Commission , in order to guarantee uniform application by international bodies .
Fourthly , and lastly - and this has already been mentioned - the international legal order has changed .
We have seen this in the aborted Seattle Conference and we are now seeing it in the bilateral conferences with different regions or countries of the world .
The principle of competition must now be universal in its application .
We must monitor compliance with environmental standards , employment standards , in order to prevent dumping in this area , and we must ensure scrupulous respect for property rights and the revision of state aid , which in many industries - as has already been said - distorts competition and destroys jobs within our own territory . To sum up , we should apply similar conditions that will prevent aid , internal distortions by other countries , from being transferred to the international arena , in other words , through trickery .

Mr President , Commissioner Monti , there is much that is good in Mr Jonckheer ' s report on state aid for manufacturing industry and certain other sectors .
First of all the report reveals Parliament ' s single-minded determination to reduce state aid to ensure that the internal market functions flawlessly .
Many of the report ' s conclusions , however , are cause for concern , at least for our group .
For example , the fact that the amount and level of state aid calculated on a per capita basis vary considerably from Member State to Member State reveals the need for surveys such as this .
Aid that is based on the self-seeking ambitions of a nation gives companies unfair advantages , thus distorting competition and leading to an ineffective , uneconomic division of Europe ' s meagre resources .
The form the aid takes is important .
Forms of state aid that require an effort from the beneficiary are to be supported .
For example , state guarantees , on which the Commission has just publicised its position , must naturally be considered state aid , but they are , in my opinion , a better option than granting aid directly to companies .
The report on competition policy further stresses the Commission ' s confidence in hard and fast rules instead of putting the emphasis on economic arguments regarding efficiency , which affects competitiveness .
The European economy will never achieve the level of competitiveness desired if we do not show we trust in the markets .
If competition policy is to be made subordinate to the aims of social and environmental policy , real efficiency and economic growth will remain just a dream .
Competition policy has to be seen as part of the whole of the economy and it must be assessed with reference to trade policy and non-material rights : we should not just be emphasising its social dimension .
The aims of social policy can be best realised through stronger economic growth , not by making compromises with regard to decisions on competition policy .
Mr Rapkay ' s report also emphasises the importance of the international dimension with regard to competition law .
In my opinion , it would be good if we could achieve consensus at the international level regarding certain basic principles of competition law .
Aiming instead at harmonised minimum standards will easily lead to a situation where we leap over the lowest hurdle and end up with the lowest common denominator , which will water down all the aims of competition policy .
Mr President , Mr Monti , the reform of competition rules calls for a commitment by the European Union , not only in the light and as a consequence of changes which have taken place through the years , but also with a forward-looking view to the Union ' s enlargement .
I would like to thank the rapporteur , Mr von Wogau , for his commitment and I welcome his thoughts .
Moreover , I would like to say that I appreciate the remarks and observations that Professor Tesauro , Chairman of the Italian Competition Authority , sent me , and which I am sure Mr Monti will take into due account with a strong sense of collaboration .
Our real concern is undoubtedly to initiate further liberalisation of the market , and , above all , to achieve consistency between the different national markets .
As things stand , there are considerable differences between them which come to the fore if we compare the English , Italian and French markets . There is a large degree of state protectionism in the French market which is not found in the English market and is only present to an extremely limited extent in Italy .
Another issue concerns the economies of countries involved in enlargement , which may run the risk of remaining assisted economies for ever more if provision is not made for gradual adjustment .
In my opinion , we should also create a threshold below which two significant components which characterise our economic structure should be placed : small and medium-sized businesses , which bind the European economy together , and social protection , which Europe has always guaranteed to the weakest parts of the economy .
Safeguarding the social function of the market is what makes the difference between free trade , pure and simple , and a system for improving people ' s quality of life .
A point to consider regarding the new rules concerns the economy of the outermost regions and islands , all of which must be protected .
We ought therefore to consider creating two focal points of an external market by instigating profitable relations with Russia and the Mediterranean countries , precisely so that their economies become less peripheral .
I hope - and I thank Mr Monti for this - that the new rules will reflect as many aspects of economic policy as possible and that their social function will be guaranteed .
Mr President , competition is at the heart of the European internal market policy and is also its driving force .
A free and open market can only exist by the grace of competition , marked by clear , uniform rules .
In his report , Karl von Wogau manages to capture this very well .
But Europe is changing .
The economies are growing , we are enlarging to 25-30 Member States .
The European Commission will become overburdened if it pursues its current policy .
It is therefore necessary to modernise competition policy .
This is not in question .
Having said this , I still have concerns about the proposed decentralisation .
How will the Commission , as keeper of the Treaties , guarantee that decisions are taken uniformly in matters of competition in London , Palermo , Helsinki and , soon , Budapest and Ankara ?
This is necessary if legal inequality is to be prevented , and issues of competition will gravitate towards the court where the most lenient judgements are given .
It is not enough to say that , in the Member States , there is already 40 years ' worth of experience .
In the Netherlands , the competition authority is still in its infancy .
This country has a very small market which , unfortunately , is often at the same time defined as the relevant market .
This in contrast to Germany , where a very experienced Kartellamt is exercising its powers within a gigantic market .
The European Commission ' s belief that , in all quarters of the Union , legislation will , almost as a matter of course , be interpreted in the same way , is what , within catholic circles , we term " foolhardy , " and this is not allowed .
Uniformity needs to be worked on .
Think of specialist , national courts with the option of direct appeal to a special competition court at the European Court .
This special court in Luxembourg is necessary in order to build up broad expertise .
Moreover , due to the immense economic and social interests involved , we cannot afford to wait for a judgement to be pronounced two years after the event , as is now quite normal .
What is the Commissioner ' s opinion of this ?
I would like to finish off by making an important point for small and medium-sized businesses .
In order to grant small and medium-sized companies greater security , the European Commission itself needs to draw up an exemption regulation for small and medium-sized businesses so that , alongside vertical exemptions , horizontal exemptions will also be possible .
Through cooperation , small , independent firms must be able to stand up to the large chains .
It cannot be the aim of European competition policy to make life impossible for small businesses .
Moreover , regarding these small businesses , we will have to consider whether it would not be better to apply a system with a prior warning built in , the yellow card , instead of an immediate red card , which will be a large fine and will threaten the company ' s very existence .
Mr President , being the last to speak gives me the privilege , Commissioner , of telling you that the majority of this House supports your initiative and has expressed a total , and , I believe , justified , confidence in you at the helm of this boat .
But we all want to be oarsmen on it . We all belong on the same boat and want to row with you .
I therefore believe it to be absolutely necessary to establish an interinstitutional dialogue so that we might reach a good conclusion and put all the finishing touches to this essential reform .
The many ideas which have been expressed here could be put into three broad categories .
Firstly , there is the concern that some have expressed , in particular Mrs Randzio-Plath , President of the Committee on Economic Affairs , of whether this new system of legal exception is absolutely compatible with the Treaty .
I share that concern and I believe that this issue should be addressed .
Secondly , we have the issue of companies ' legal certainty .
It is true , Commissioner , that the Commission is not a machine for manufacturing legal certainty .
We all agree on this .
But it is nonetheless true - and this has been repeated from all sections of this House - that the European industrial fabric is composed of small and medium-sized businesses , and that the Commission often plays the role of auctoritas , of legitimising the nature of the internal market .
On this point I will give my opinion on something which Mr Karas said .
There have only been nine rejections .
But here I would like to call on my experience as a lawyer .
How often has a lawyer with two companies and one project , in the face of a Commission guideline given ex ante , changed that project in order for it to comply with the competition rules !
This is therefore an aspect to be considered .
Thirdly , we have the problem of the uniform application of Community law .
In this respect , the excellent speech by Mrs Thyssen cannot be improved upon .
I believe that biodiversity is good , as is cultural diversity , but not diversity in the application of the law with regard to the essential core of the internal market , that is to say , competition law .
Here improvements should be made .
Only in certain countries , Germany for example , is there specialised jurisdiction .
Perhaps this is a promising avenue to explore , but we must also explore others .
What we cannot do , Commissioner - and I would like to end on this note - is to give way , and give ammunition , to those who regard the European institutions as the property of the great and the good , of the rich , and not of the citizen , or the small and medium business , which , in the worst case scenario - which will never become reality because the requisite measures will be applied to prevent it - will result in courts which make disparate judgements , very late , with no real possibility of control apart from what the French call " le parcours du combatant " , that is to say , after Lord knows how many years , when the Court in Luxembourg passes judgement , a Court which we know to be inundated at the moment .
Commissioner , it is impossible to overstate the importance of this reform .
It transcends competition , it transcends the cohesion of the internal market . I believe that it profoundly affects the meaning of European integration , the meaning of the legitimacy of European integration .
Therefore , Commissioner , we are relying on this interinstitutional dialogue to put the finishing touches to a reform which we are all hoping for and which we believe will lead us to a successful conclusion under your direction and with our cooperation .
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I heartily congratulate the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the entire European Parliament for the great deal of interest shown in competition-related subjects .
In my opinion , Mr President , this joint debate fully bears this out .
We have heard some very thorough observations which both concern the philosophy of economic policy and are important for the institutional order .
Our common aim is to reform and strengthen competition policy , a pillar of the social market economy and of European construction .
The guiding thread running through all the aspects of the reform of competition policy , which we shall have the opportunity to address together , aims to ensure more effective protection of competition , reduce the bureaucratic burden weighing down businesses and take decision-making processes closer to the European people .
I , personally , would sincerely like to thank Mr von Wogau for his commitment in examining the dossier on the White Paper and for the quality of his report .
I would like to divide the considerations raised during this debate on the von Wogau report into four groups . I do not consider these considerations to be criticisms of the Commission , but , on the contrary , fundamental contributions , since justified concerns have been expressed that we both want to overcome .
The groups are : the efficiency of the rules , the risk of renationalisation , consistent application of the rules and legal certainty . I will take these very quickly one at a time .
Efficiency : I am convinced that this reform will strengthen the protection of competition within the single market rather than weaken it .
The current notification instrument , ladies and gentlemen , no longer allows us to reach this objective because it does not guarantee that the Commission is properly informed about the most serious restrictions - I would remind you that , in 35 years , there have only been nine cases in which the Commission has decided on prohibition following notification in the absence of a complaint - nor does it guarantee transparency or provide real legal certainty for businesses which , in the majority of cases , receive a simple comfort letter .
The proposed system will improve the protection of competition , primarily because it will allow the Commission to concentrate its action on the most serious restrictions , also because it will involve national and competition authorities to a greater degree in stamping out infringements , and lastly in that it will allow victims of infringements to have direct recourse to national judges , whose mission is to protect the rights of individuals .
The question of renationalisation : first of all , although it is not really necessary , I would like to point out and stress , several times if I may , that the White Paper does not affect mergers or State aid in the slightest - we are not looking for devolution in these areas - but that , as far as Regulation 17 is concerned , there is a risk of renationalisation .
Of course we have pondered this issue , and we are still studying it extremely carefully , and this is also thanks to the concerns you have voiced .
At the end of the day , I honestly do not believe that this fear is justified .
The Commission proposal accords the Commission a central role in establishing guidelines on competition policy .
The reform does not entail any reduction in the Commission ' s activities , but requires them to focus on the most important dossiers .
The reform will lead to a gradual development - I stress this because I was particularly taken with this term , used by Mrs Randzio-Plath , and , moreover , I fully agree with it - of European competition culture .
So , the reform will lead to the various national competition cultures being transplanted and taking root in the European competition culture - where today various small plants thrive , and they are certainly not all the same .
The fifteen sets of national provisions will gradually be abandoned , permitting greater use of Community law , which a higher number of protagonists will be able to apply .
Allow me to emphasise that this is communitisation , not renationalisation , of competition law .
The question of consistent application : the risk of inconsistent application of competition rules must be borne in mind , but I do not believe that it should be exaggerated .
As with many other provisions of the Treaty , Articles 81 ( 1 ) and 82 have , after all , been applied for decades by national authorities and judges , and I do not feel that this has created serious problems .
In a directly applicable exception system , consistency will depend firstly on the degree of clarity of the material rules .
The Commission will make every effort to define the legislative framework , both through general provisions and through its decision-making practice .
Secondly , we will need to set efficient mechanisms in place to prevent disputes , and the White Paper sets out mechanisms for information and consultation .
In this respect , I would like to say something about the excellent idea put forward by Mrs Riis-J?rgensen and Mr Huhne of monitoring implementation .
This then is the idea of monitoring implementation .
I must say that I find this a very good idea that we will probably take up .
Though we have a high respect for the work of national competition authorities and so on , it is evident that we will watch very carefully how EC law is applied by national authorities and courts .
That is why the Commission wants to keep the right to withdraw a case from a national competition authority in the event of incorrect application .
This goes at least some way towards alleviating your concerns , Mrs Peijs .
Concerning Mr Evans ' point regarding the implications for businesses , it is important that the cost-benefit analysis should be seriously conducted .
The purpose of publishing the White Paper is , after all , to collect comments from businesses as well as from other sources .
We have received many excellent observations and contributions which give us the material to make a cost-benefit assessment for business .
We will examine all that material carefully before making a legislative proposal for a new regulation .
There is one point about the impact for firms which is of great importance . This was raised by Mrs Thyssen , Mrs Peijs and Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi : the issue of SMEs .
Many speakers have underlined this .
The Commission is paying particular attention to legal certainty for SMEs .
We are proposing a system which considerably improves legal certainty for SMEs .
Why ?
Is this simply a political gesture ?
No .
In the system we propose reforming our substantive rules in such a way that most SMEs will be covered by block exemption regulations , as in the field of vertical restraints .
Most SMEs have in fact less than 30 % of the market share .
We have a de minimis notice which contains a declaration that since SMEs are not involved in market dominance they are not normally subject to the strict prohibition under Article 81 ( 1 ) .
We are working on further block exemptions and guidelines which will all take into account the particular situation of SMEs , and our White Paper on modernisation will also improve the situation of SMEs , first by eliminating the bureaucracy resulting from the present notification system , and secondly , by making Article 81 ( 3 ) directly applicable , which will benefit SMEs in particular .
The fourth group is legal certainty . Mr Evans , legal certainty is , of course - and I am the first to acknowledge this - important for businesses , not just for the legal professions , although the latter do play an extremely important role in the construction of Europe .
Legal certainty is important for businesses : this is a subject , the importance of which the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi , emphasised in her last intervention - and I am very grateful to her for the way she always takes the widest interest in subjects regarding the single market , including , in this case , competition .
I am convinced that this proposal will increase legal certainty for businesses for three reasons : by virtue of the direct effect of Article 81 ( 3 ) , it will permit authorisation , without a prior decision , of all restrictive competition agreements which meet the exemption conditions ; it will create the opportunity to help businesses in the event of doubts over interpretation through the publication of reasoned opinions ; it will be accompanied by exemption regulations and guidelines which will clarify the rules and ensure certainty .
( FR ) Mrs Thyssen also referred to the matter of legal privilege for company lawyers .
Let me simply remind you that the Court of Justice pronounced a ruling on this in 1982 , as you know better than I. This ruling remains valid and there is nothing to justify any reconsideration thereof .
The White Paper requires only a single aspect of the issue to be re-examined : the exchange of confidential information .
The guarantees which companies must be given are currently under discussion .
( IT ) I shall now quickly turn , Mr President , to Mr Rapkay ' s report , and I would like to thank him sincerely for the quality of his work and for the broad endorsement given to the Commission ' s XXVIIIth Annual Report on Competition Policy .
We share the same basic views but the Rapkay report lays emphasis on several points that we shall need to consider very carefully .
I will mention only two , in order to be brief .
The first is greater transparency .
Parliament knows how important we all consider the question of transparency in competition policy , as I did right from the moment I had my hearing , on 1 September , in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs .
As regards the international aspect of competition policy , I can confirm , Mr Rapkay , that the Commission is willing to provide Parliament with a report on this subject , to which Mrs Randzio-Plath has also drawn our attention .
We have very satisfactory bilateral relations with the relevant American , Canadian and Japanese authorities as regards competition policy , and we are working to ensure that competition is treated as a separate topic within the World Trade Organisation .
Mr Jonckheer , I would like to thank you just as warmly for your report on the seventh survey on State aid in the European Union .
I will not talk about codecision here , but this certainly does not mean I do not consider it important .
It has major institutional implications which obviously go beyond the specific area of competition ; I am therefore not qualified to give an opinion , and this is obviously a matter for the broader context of the Intergovernmental Conference .
With regard to your suggestions , Mr Jonckheer , you already know that my staff , who , although short-handed as usual , are fortunately highly qualified , are working hard to produce the register of State aids and the State aids ' scoreboard ' .
I am awaiting with great interest the results of the eighth survey , which , according to the scheduled timeframe , should be being drawn up by the staff now , in January , and for adoption by the Commission in March 2000 , to see whether the latest trends are confirmed .
Mr Jonckheer , Mrs Thyssen and Mr Gemelli raised the issue of the state of preparation of the candidate countries in terms of competition in general and of State aid .
I can only say very briefly , that we are actively working with them on a practical level : they are making preparations , they now all have competition laws and are setting up the relevant authorities .
I can also say , in respect of your concerns on energy and especially on the environment - which , as you know , I share - that we are concluding the review of the organisation of environmental State aid .
In connection with the issue of State aid , I would also like to take up one of the points raised by Mrs Riis-J?rgensen , among others regarding repayment of illegal aid .
In April 1999 , the Commission adopted new Rules of Procedure which introduced specific rules on repayment .
In the near future - and I can assure you of this - you will see just how seriously we mean to take these rules .
Finally , Mr President , I would like to thank Mr Langen warmly for his report , which , although geared more towards a specific sector , is a valuable contribution .
I would like to say that , as we know , the Commission report on State aid to the steel industry does not include individual decisions made under the exception procedure , pursuant to Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty , but addresses decisions which are not covered by the code on aid for the steel sector .
In respect of future provisions on aid for the steel sector , which will come into force in July 2002 , we will ensure that strict discipline continues to be applied , and the industry itself now agrees on the need for this .
When we have finalised our proposal on the new rules and decided on the most suitable legal form , I will be happy to present our viewpoint to you .
So , Mr President , I will walk away from this debate , for which I am very grateful to Parliament , in the knowledge that we have the European Parliament ' s intellectual and political support , which appears to come from all sides of the House , for competition policy , its basic appreciation for the work the Commission is carrying out and its confidence in our ability to continue to deliver in the future .
I am especially grateful for all of this . We will continue the interinstitutional dialogue opened with the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs , and , at a more general level , with Parliament .
In this regard , I liked your term , Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi : we must all pull together , preferably in the same direction .
Competition is not an end in itself , as Mr Rapkay rightly pointed out , but it plays an extremely important role in European integration .
As Mr von Wogau said at the start of the debate , at the end of the day competition is not an abstract concept : it is in the public interest and forms the basis of the social market economy .
I would also like to say that competition policy will play a valuable social , as well as economic , role in the European integration process , as it has done in the past .
Thank you , Commissioner Monti .
The joint debate is closed .
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m.
Protection under criminal law of the Union 's financial interests
The next item is the report ( A5-0002 / 2000 ) by Mrs Theato , on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control , containing Parliament ' s recommendations to the Commission on introducing protection under criminal law of the Union ' s financial interests .
Mr President , year after year we learn , mainly from the European Court of Auditors ' test reports , that money is lost to the budget of the European Union on account of misdemeanours ranging from wastage , mismanagement , and irregularities to suspected blatant fraud .
For some time now , these abuses have meant that Parliament has been called upon to initiate measures that should serve to protect the European taxpayer ' s money , which , when all is said and done , is what sustains the Union ' s budget .
Particular attention in this respect should be given to combating fraud , to detecting it , punishing those guilty of it and preventing it from happening .
Creating UCLAF by means of the Task Force and setting up the anti-fraud office OLAF were important steps , as was the regulation on protecting the financial interests of the Community and on local monitoring .
The Union can only impose sanctions in the field pertaining to administrative law when cases are exposed .
So far , efforts on the part of the Commission to ask for improperly obtained money to be returned only had limited success .
It is for the Member States to undertake criminal measures .
Since there is often overlap between the two legal angles and cross-border violations against the Union budget are on the increase - they are also committed by those involved in organised crime - it is unclear as to where the responsibility lies amongst the Member States .
Then there are differences between the national legal requirements of the individual Member States , together with protracted or even unfulfilled requests for mutual assistance in law enforcement .
What is more , the agreement on the protection of financial interests and the two subsequent protocols signed by the European Council in 1995 did nothing to change this .
For it to enter into force , it must be ratified by all 15 Member States .
After five years only four have done so .
This state of deadlock , which threatens to undermine the credibility of the Union , has inspired Parliament to initiate the setting-up of a European Public Prosecutor ' s Office .
There is no intention whatsoever to create a transnational criminal law and judicial authority , rather the aim is to equip the Union with specific instruments for the protection of its financial interests , that is whilst upholding the principle of subsidiarity .
We are giving new life to this idea with this report and call upon the Commission to present legislative proposals that will enable this goal to be realised .
The concerns of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , as articulated in its position , together with those of the Committee on Citizens ' Freedoms and Rights , Justice and Home Affairs , will also be taken full account of in this process .
We would like to make two recommendations arising from the establishment of OLAF and which should safeguard its operational and legal efficiency , transparency , and the protection of the rights of individuals .
In addition , we need - and this is my first recommendation - a legislative act that includes those offences which are to the detriment of the Union ' s financial interests , and in which main principles are firmly established .
I support the proposed deadline for the Commission being 30 September in a proposed amendment .
The second recommendation relates to criminal proceedings .
The Commission ought - and I have also amended this deadline to 31 May 2000 - to propose a legislative act on the establishment of an independent body which has institutional links with the Commission , for coordinating and supervising the legal investigative body OLAF .
The existing monitoring committee can only monitor the independence of the Director of the agency .
The proposal for a legislative act of this kind should contain an independent statute for this body and define its tasks , which are confined to inquiries and criminal prosecution undertaken by OLAF into activities which are to the detriment of the Union ' s financial interests , and to OLAF ' s relationship with the national authorities .
There is no question of this influencing the administration of justice in the Member States .
The Court of Justice is to monitor the legality of the legislative acts .
In addition , we call upon the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference to take up debate on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor ' s Office for the protection of the financial interests of the Union , where possible on the basis of the now widely recognised study compiled by well-known experts , the so-called corpus juris , and of the feasibility studies that have subsequently appeared .
Further support for this proposal is also to be found in the second report of the so-called Five Wise Men .
The Commission , Mr Barnier , Mr Vitorino and several Member States are equally receptive to the idea .
I call upon you , ladies and gentlemen , to vote in favour of this report , which the Committee on Budgetary Control adopted with a large majority .
We can set another example here , to the effect that Parliament is taking action to prevent mismanagement and in particular , fraud , and to mete out punishment where necessary .
Mr President , I am happy to take the floor in the debate on this report and I congratulate Mrs Theato .
I believe that this is a report for which cooperation between committees has worked very well , and the result , which we have received today , is moderate and thoughtful in a very delicate area . This moderation and thoughtfulness is particularly necessary in the implementation of Article 280 ( 4 ) .
If we had to give a prize for the article which was most difficult to understand , least clear and most confused - however you like to put it - the competition would be very hard fought .
The Treaty is a collection of complex articles . However , this one would undoubtedly be one of the firm favourites to win such a prize .
At the same time , it is an especially delicate issue because it deals with the protection of the Community ' s financial interests , as Mrs Theato has explained very well .
We are all aware - and this Parliament has been the steadfast champion in this respect - of the need to protect the financial interests of the Community . But be careful .
As the French say , " ne jettons pas le b?b? avec l 'eau du bain " [ let us not throw the baby out with the bath water ] , that is to say , in the protection of the Community ' s financial interests , we must respect , on the one hand - as Mrs Theato has said - the competences of the Member States , but also other matters which affect the citizens , which affect the essential guarantees .
The conclusions of the Theato report safeguard them perfectly .
Therefore , in my capacity as president of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , and , of course , as an MEP , I hope that a large majority of this House will support this report and that it will be well implemented by the Commission .
Mr President , this , as Mrs Theato said , is a critical report .
It is a report that has been proposed by the Committee on Budgetary Control and it is an own-initiative report .
One of the reasons why we were very keen to bring this forward was because , whether we like it or not , the European Union has a reputation for fraud and mismanagement .
It is sometimes exaggerated but there it is . We need to do something about it .
Some of the measures we have put in place in the past have not been honoured by some of the Member States - and let us not forget that the Member States are responsible for implementing about 80 % of the EU budget .
A lot of them have not signed up to or not ratified the Convention on the Protection of Financial Interests , and therefore it was clear that something more radical needed to be done .
We need to take this responsibility seriously .
We need to be able to prosecute people who commit fraud against the European Union .
The question is : who prosecutes ?
That is where we really get into difficulty .
Whose responsibility is it when you are dealing with a body that crosses so many frontiers ?
We need also to be sensitive to the concerns of Member States .
The proposal to set up a European public prosecutor service is a very sensitive one .
We are all aware that an all-out federal approach and a situation where a European judicial authority takes precedence over the national judicial authorities is a step too far for some people .
But the discussion needs to begin and we are therefore calling on the IGC to start discussions .
Of most importance to Parliament , as the guardian of the budget of the European Union , is how to deal with people who work within the European Union institutions .
At a time when we are looking at the whole reform process it is critical that we send the right signal .
People need to understand that if they commit fraud they will be prosecuted , and that is not the case at the moment .
The whole question as to whether we have the legal authority to do this has been outlined by Mrs Palacio .
I should like to make clear that my group is going to propose an amendment deleting the detail of how the Commission should tackle this question .
We are aware that it is a delicate debate .
We know that the Commission may perhaps need the scope to negotiate a situation which would be acceptable to all parties .
Can I just make it clear that we have no commitment to a corpus juris here , no commitment to a federal European public prosecutor .
But there is a definite commitment to change the status quo which is totally unacceptable .
Mr President , I would like to start by congratulating Mrs Theato on her report . I think it is a first-class report which will , for the most part , be supported by my group .
I just have the distinct feeling that she would have preferred to take it a little further at this stage .
Judging from the discussions held over the past five or six months , this could well be the case .
We all know that , in 1995 , it was agreed that the Union ' s financial interests should be given better protection under criminal law .
But the Member States failed to cooperate .
This is just a political fact about which little can be done at present , I think .
It is now possible , on the basis of Article 280 of the Treaty , that the Commission will take new initiatives , and I would like to suggest to the Commission that it do this at the earliest opportunity .
Unlike the previous speaker , who has now disappeared , my group is strongly in favour of a European Public Prosecutor .
My colleague Jan-Kees Wiebenga , will undoubtedly take this point further because he has already published a report on the same subject matter .
I think what we need is , at European level , to come up with exact definitions of fraud and irregularity as quickly as possible .
I myself have been involved in the committee of inquiry on transit traffic .
One of the major problems in this area was that if you do something wrong , especially when it comes to revenue of the European Union , then this will be termed an irregularity in one country and a crime in another .
This , I thought , is no longer permissible , certainly not at the moment .
I would like to make one general point on politics .
Whatever we may say about the European elections , the low turnout is a fact .
We can improve on this by punishing crime in Europe quickly , and this must be done at European level .
Mr President , I too would like to thank the rapporteur .
Mrs Theato ' s report may help to restore confidence in European institutions .
I believe that is something we are all desperately in need of , bearing in mind the results of the last European elections and of the level of turnout .
Yet , every year we have the same problem .
The Court of Auditors publishes its report , which criticises the Member States on account of various incidences of fraud .
So far , however , the European institutions have not had sufficient means at their disposal to take vigorous action here , to ensure that implementation actually takes place and that matters are remedied .
It is precisely this process that undermines confidence every year .
I believe that Mrs Theato ' s report and her proposal can help to reverse this very process and to make clear that the European institutions take steps to ensure that European money is employed in a targeted manner and that no fraud is perpetrated here .
It is important that after the first step , which has already been taken , i.e. forming OLAF from UCLAF - an independent institution - we now take the second step and create a legal framework for OLAF , in order that OLAF too might operate within a secure legal framework .
We will need the European Public Prosecutor ' s Office for this , which will see to it that there are clear legal guarantees , also for suspects .
Having said all that , I must say that unfortunately , my group will not be voting for your report as a united front .
I hope that the debate will convince a few more people .
Unfortunately , however , people still have too many misgivings to the effect that this will be the kind of European institution that undermines subsidiarity .
But I will do what I can to see that Mrs Theato ' s report receives more support .
Mr President , we are basically in favour of the resolution that has been tabled , even if we think that this can only be interpreted as an invitation by Parliament to the Council to amend the Treaties , so that effective protection under criminal law of the Union ' s financial interests can be guaranteed .
The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor ' s Office and the definition of offences common to all countries of the Union is doubtless a good idea , but it is impossible to consider putting this into practice without having first introduced a European legal system .
Indeed , we are talking about criminal law , the area where resistance that national States put up to communitisation is , and will be , fierce .
Indeed , it is unthinkable that we could put in place substantial and procedural legal regulations solely for one sector - that of the protection of financial interests - without first having created a European legal system .
Reading the precise and comprehensive explanations in the Theato report makes you realise just how many problems still need to be resolved and what these problems are .
In any case , this idea must be encouraged , and it will doubtless be during this attempt to protect financial interests that we realise that we need to include a Community corpus iuris in the Treaties .
On behalf of my group , but also personally , I hope that the vital financial spirit of the Union will pave the way for the creation of a European legal system which respects citizens ' rights and guarantees , which is to say a legal system that will raise guarantees to the acceptable levels hitherto unseen in many States .
Therefore , on behalf of my group , I would like to say that we support the Theato report ; I nevertheless think that this is essentially a subject that should be included on the IGC agenda .
Mr President , Mrs Theato ' s report on the protection of the European Union ' s financial interests proposes centralising criminal proceedings by initially creating a European Public Prosecutor .
This proposal is radically opposed to the spirit of the current system in which the criminal law and criminal proceedings that lie at the heart of the national legal systems must come under the sovereignty of each nation and lie within the exclusive competence of each state .
But the idea of a European Public Prosecutor , on the other hand , aims in the long term to confine the national states to a subordinate role in these matters .
Moreover , this proposal is liable to set off a chain reaction of totally unforeseen reforms .
According to the Theato report , the European Public Prosecutor is needed , in particular , in order to better support the inquiries of the anti-fraud office , OLAF .
At the same time , however , we see from the van Hulten report under discussion today that the European Public Prosecutor should in turn be supervised by a European Union court .
In this way , a small European reform may hide a medium-sized one , and a medium-sized one may hide a large one .
Not to mention that the large one may hide a gigantic one , as the very next thing we will see is a proposal for a European criminal law and then , why not a European Minister of Justice , supervised by an extension of the powers of the European Parliament ?
I therefore feel we must carefully consider the balance of power that we are in danger of upsetting if we put forward this type of reform , which appears to be quite specific .
In the final analysis , we feel that proposals such as the proposal for a European Public Prosecutor demonstrate an inability to conceive of a Europe in anything other than a centralised and hierarchical form , organised around a superstate .
The Union for a Europe of Nations Group , on the other hand , wishes to see a polycentric Europe with nations linked in a network .
And such a network could take the form of improved coordination between national public prosecution authorities , for example , and the creation , if necessary , of national teams specialising in offences involving Community finances .
So the legal framework , Mr President , is already in place .
It is fine , in principle . It need only be fine-tuned .
Mr President , Mrs Theato is proposing institutional revolution for a twofold reason .
Public opinion , although indifferent to 20 million unemployed and thousands of mad cows , is now supposed to be worried about the fraud endangering financial interests and these two reasons are supposed to justify a twofold solution : a European criminal code with crimes against the Community and a European Prosecutor-General .
Mrs Theato probably forgot to include a European prison now that we have the FBI , the European police , in the form of OLAF .
All this would be established by two regulations , one for the Public Prosecutor and another for the criminal code . The regulations would be adopted pursuant to Article 280 of the Treaty , i.e. based on secondary law , whose characteristic feature is that it makes any sort of secondary shift of emphasis possible .
And indeed there is a twofold shift .
Firstly , the classic Eurofederalist ideological shift , a single market , a single VAT , a single diplomatic service , a single army and now a single criminal code and a single public prosecutor .
All this to combat fraud worth less than EUR 1 billion , while disregarding the tens of billions of euros lost due to the Generalised System of Preferences , free trade areas , customs presents to Chiquita and the billions lost to the fourth resource , GDP , as a result of the budgetary rationing pact .
Next we have the Puritan shift : the Teutonic Europe of the North , the Europe of the Lutherans , Calvinists and Quakers , wishes to inflict its moral order on us .
Basically , the more we lose our grip on morals , the more we tighten our grip on our wallet .
Mr President , it is essential for there to be effective protection under criminal law of the financial interests of the European Union , more so these days than there used to be .
The fraud and corruption scandals of the past have had a profoundly damaging effect on the confidence of Europe ' s citizens .
The credibility of the efforts we make here in Parliament to employ our finances properly stands and falls with the efforts we make to deal with such scandals and prevent them from arising in the future .
This does not just mean administrative changes but also structural changes ; in other words we must create instruments which are actually capable of affording protection under criminal law .
The Intergovernmental Conference 2000 will provide the appropriate forum for discussing this .
Now it is , of course , possible to take the view that criminal law and criminal proceedings law are intrinsically matters pertaining to the law of the Member States and it is quite unthinkable that they should be governed by the principle of subsidiarity .
There is no doubt that I myself am one of the advocates of this principle and one of those who oppose any further extension of competences at European level .
When it comes to the demands made on the Intergovernmental Conference agenda , it is the call for there to be clear delimitation of competences that should take centre stage .
Now that is not a contradiction , since the demand for an instrument of criminal law and criminal proceedings law , as detailed in Recommendations I and II of the report , is actually about taking action in the EU ' s own interests , which , as far as that goes , does not damage the legal interests of the Member States ; on the contrary , it protects them , at least indirectly .
The compatibility with the various national systems of law , as confirmed by experts , shows that criminal law is another area where Europe has a great deal in common , for example where the significance of the offences we have been discussing here is concerned .
Taking these aspects into account , I consider it appropriate that we create a framework of this kind , as proposed , and I also consider it necessary to the further development of OLAF .
Mr President , will a European Public Prosecutor be able to abolish football fraud involving EU funds ?
I do not believe so .
On the other hand , we can go a long way using the existing tools .
An alternative to the European Public Prosecutor could be Eurojust , as proposed at the last Summit .
In the way it is structured , Eurojust should correspond to Europol and support investigations into crimes .
It is just such practical cooperation there is a need for .
OLAF , Europol and the Treaty on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters should be used fully and , when the Fraud Convention from 1995 is at long last ratified in the Member States , we can also achieve a lot with this .
I nonetheless agree with the rapporteur that it is quite unacceptable that most Member States should still not have ratified this Agreement .
It is simply too bad , and I can well understand why people are becoming impatient and demanding that we have a common European Public Prosecutor ' s Office instead .
However , it would be quite a mammoth task to establish such an Office .
It is , after all , only the most serious crimes which would have consequences under criminal law .
Ninety per cent of cases would be disciplinary matters concerning negligence or incompetence .
Instead , there is a need for proper internal control and the ability to sack people more easily .
We should alter the staff regulations and disciplinary procedures and , especially , change our practice .
At the moment , Article 52 of the staff regulations concerning dismissal on the grounds of gross negligence is never used .
Should we not make a point of cleaning up our own act and putting our own house in order before we plunge into constructing grand new institutions !
Mr President , we all want to do something about combating European fraud .
But the question is now : is the European Union doing anything about it as well ?
The answer to this is that we know very little about this .
The Tampere Summit was about combating crime .
Everyone was supposedly pleased about it but , in reality , we have made little progress .
There is no European anti-fraud legislation in force because the Member States , as was stated before , have not ratified the treaty texts submitted .
So a great deal has to be done in this area .
And what exactly should be done ?
Two things , and Mrs Theato ' s report clearly spells these out .
Firstly , the same penalty clauses regarding European fraud must apply in all Member States of the European Union .
So , unification in this small area .
Secondly , we should indeed set up a European Public Prosecutor ' s Office with two tasks , firstly to assist the national public prosecutors , helping bring criminal proceedings in European fraud cases and , secondly , to supervise Europol and OLAF in a judicial sense because these are two criminal investigation services which can operate at the moment without any judicial supervision .
The European Public Prosecutor ' s Office is nothing to be afraid of . I feel there is a lot of scaremongering going on .
It is , in fact , something very positive .
Just like Europol .
Europol , involving police cooperation , does not rank above the national police forces , but is there for the purpose of exchanging information between police forces .
This is exactly the task which a small , limited , European Public Prosecutor ' s Office should carry out , not just at the criminal investigation stage , but also at the prosecution stage .
Parliament supports this .
The Committee of Wise Men supports this .
I urge the Council of Ministers and the European Commission to do the same .
Mr President , I want to concentrate on the issue of corpus juris .
I would very much like to support what Mrs Morgan said on this issue .
Corpus juris is something that was set up without any kind of public debate or public participation .
The idea of a European Public Prosecutor on the continental inquisitorial model with overriding jurisdiction throughout EU territories would have a major impact on the traditional systems both in Ireland and the UK .
The idea of a single criminal code and the European Public Prosecutor is something which Member States have a right to be informed about .
Indeed when the plan was initially drawn up they said it would be restricted to cases of fraud against the EU budget .
But when corpus juris was actually launched in 1977 in San Sebastian - to a very select audience of 140 jurists , with no media invited - the President of the European Parliament at the time , Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado , said that he considered it embryonic and that the intention was to extend EU competence in criminal matters to all areas of criminal activity .
We need a public debate on this .
We need the Member States and the citizens in the Member States to be properly informed .
The issue of the threat to the traditional legal system in Ireland and the UK needs to be addressed .
There needs to be much more openness and transparency on this issue than there has been to date .
It is unacceptable that something like this has been foisted on the Member States of the EU without any proper public debate .
Mr President , on behalf of the Italian Radical Members , I abstained on this text in the Committee on Budgetary Control , because I share the concerns that have been voiced , in such an authoritative way , by the representative of another legal culture which is certainly important : common law .
With this text we are undoubtedly forcing the issue , since we believe that there are points that must be resolved and it is important for Community fraud to be curbed , to be crushed .
Nevertheless , the way in which our committee intends to see this text through , with the drive and stubborn desire of its Chair , Mrs Theato , will not be without its critics .
Another major criticism of the text concerns secondary law .
Article 280 of the Treaty allows the Council to pinpoint the appropriate instruments to curb fraud .
Nevertheless , we are left feeling slightly perplexed that they envisage an institution which will mean higher quality , without immediately planning how to deal with the repercussions of this . That is to say , they are neglecting the area of defence and therefore the possibility for the prosecution and the defence to work together effectively within such an important legal system .
We wanted to express our perplexity as regards these points by abstaining in committee .
Mr President , we need to speak our minds on this subject in the European Parliament , during the plenary sittings and in the committees , even if it is obvious that the debate must take into account the world of the culture , the legal culture and the places where institutional issues are addressed .
We find ourselves dealing with some very serious events , which in the past seemed to be the norm .
Today , something has changed , at least in terms of mechanisms , and especially as regards monitoring , but we are still not satisfied , particularly if debates are held in competent fora that go as far as to discuss a European Public Prosecutor , crimes , fraud , the misappropriation of funds and the disclosure of confidential information pertaining to one ' s office at European level .
I feel that we must clearly safeguard the Community ' s interests , its image and its relationship with taxpayers , who are an indispensable and essential part of Community life .
For this reason , it is right to look at the issue of safeguarding common interests , and to establish better links with legal systems within the individual States .
In this respect , we are faced with the most sensitive issue : what role would a European Public Prosecutor play in relations with the individual national communities and their domestic legal systems ?
This issue needs to be explored further in both cultural and practical terms .
Today , we run the risk of adding a new institution to the already numerous and varied institutions which exist within each country .
Mr President , I would very much just like to add to two particular points .
Firstly , I would not wish to take up the philosophical issues of subsidiarity and the sovereignty of Member States , although I am very much in favour of having such a debate , for my regular viewing of British television programmes has shown me what the national politicians are conjuring up there in the way of threats posed by the continent to the home-grown legal system .
Sometimes it is worthy of satire and merits discussion , but I digress .
The point I want to make relates to Mrs Theato ' s report .
I believe that as far as the judicial difficulties are concerned that we are facing here - and the European Union evidently has only very limited room for manoeuvre when it comes to making these offences litigable as European criminal offences - we have become embroiled in legalities .
I am referring to Recommendations 1 and 2 . After all , there is no longer mention of a European Public Prosecutor , rather , for legal reasons it has now become an independent , European authority , or " body " to quote Mrs Theato .
We obviously have difficulties there with regard to the legal basis .
We also face difficulties with regard to offences .
Nothing has changed there .
As has always been the case , there are offences that transcend European offences , as it were , or at least there is the potential for them to do so , and these might include money-laundering , receiving stolen goods , and forming a criminal organisation .
As far as that is concerned , I believe there are judicial uncertainties that need to be overcome .
What Parliament needs to do as a matter of urgency though - and this is why we intend to vote for recital 1 without these recommendations - is to send out a clear political signal to the Commission and Council that we want to see a clear legislative act put an end to this disorderly state of affairs .
Mr President , for years , Parliament has called for specific and uniform protection under criminal law of the Union ' s financial interests .
Frustration inevitably sets in when we see the weakness of the Convention ( and of the protocols relating to this protection ) which , five years after being signed , has still not been ratified and has still not come into force .
On the other hand , more pro-active attempts , such as OLAF , which is currently operating , have not allayed legitimate concerns about the system of guarantees for individual rights .
The proposals in Mrs Theato ' s report seek to encourage the Commission to present a substantive legislative measure on the protection , under criminal law , of our financial interests , which would criminalise certain activity , specifically fraud against the Community budget . These proposals represent a serious attempt to establish a new and ever more urgently-needed uniform criminal law for the whole Community .
At the same time they call for the existence of an independent body to coordinate and monitor the thoroughness of investigations by OLAF , without harming the administration of justice by each Member State and under the supervision of the European Court of Justice .
Finally , following on from what was agreed in Tampere , the report restates the need for a European Public Prosecutor . This issue has been brought once again to the fore by Commissioner Vitorino ' s timely decision to ask the IGC to include in its agenda the creation of this new role , which everyone considers vital .
We should approve this report because it highlights the need to maintain efficient legal control over our institutions , by protecting the Union ' s financial system with a substantive and procedural European law which is capable of maintaining the credibility of the Community ' s economic life .
Nevertheless , it raises some very basic questions .
Is there currently a sufficient legal basis for justifying , in legal terms , the creation of a specifically Community-wide criminal law which , although it might be called subsidiary , will always clash with the practice , and in certain areas , with the traditional , separate criminal law of the Member States ?
As there are doubts , would it not be more advisable , from a political point of view , to put the reform of the legal system on the IGC agenda , and incorporate these proposals into the more general reform of the Union ' s legal system along the lines of what is being requested for the European Public Prosecutor ?
Surely these subjects will be of the greatest relevance to a revision of the treaties which will contribute to the stability of the area of freedom , security and justice ?
Mr President , the EU is now exposed to tough scrutiny .
Confidence in the European Union has been seriously damaged . To remedy this , vigorous efforts are required .
We therefore welcome increased resources for OLAF so that we can investigate any suspicions more efficiently .
At the same time , we think it is obvious that those who commit crimes against the EU must be able to be held accountable in an effective way .
It is unfortunate that the convention for protecting the Union ' s financial interests has been put into effect in so few Member States .
We therefore think it only right that the Commission should have the task of tabling proposals entailing the further development of the already existing legal framework .
On the other hand , I am not convinced that making the process more efficient in this way requires common European legislation or centralisation of the fight against crime .
In the present situation , I am therefore sceptical about the idea of a European prosecutor , which it is scarcely possible to implement within the framework of the present treaty .
We have more confidence in Eurojust , where prosecutors from the individual nations cooperate .
The major problem is not that no measures are being taken against crimes committed against the Union but , rather , that these are committed so often and far too seldom discovered .
The challenge for the Commission and for ourselves is , however , to find the right mix .
The mismanagement and examples of fraud which occur ought not to lead to our ending up in an old-fashioned hierarchical bureaucracy which , through an exaggerated supervision of detail , prevents the development of a modern administration .
We therefore welcome the aggressive approach of Mr van Hulten ' s report .
The main idea ought to be that each administration takes responsibility for its own supervision .
Our experience of modern administration tells us that openness , decentralisation of responsibility and qualified evaluation are often as effective as detailed bureaucratic supervision .
The major challenge is , therefore , to create a modern and efficient administration without compromising on supervision and the rule of law .
This requires staff training , more modern recruitment methods and , above all , openness and public control .
Being able to scrutinise the administration effectively is the best protection against irregularities .
Mr President , rapporteur , restoring the confidence of the citizens in the work of the European institutions and in European politics is one of the most important tasks we have before us .
The Commission has given its commitment to this task and the draft for the overall package of internal reforms documents this .
Parliament is committed to this task , which is something this report bears impressive witness to .
On behalf of the Commission I am able to congratulate the rapporteur on having again addressed the genuinely difficult question as to what we can do , in terms of creating legal bases and effecting institutional change , to step up the fight against fraud perpetrated against the European Union .
On ratifying the Amsterdam Treaty , all Member States stated that they wanted to accord combating fraud against the financial interests of the European Union the same priority as combating fraud to their own detriment . Yet as things stand , only the first four Member States have ratified the agreement concluded in 1995 .
The Commission wholeheartedly agrees with the rapporteur that this is an unacceptable situation
A legislative act , a directive , in which there is a standardised definition for the different types of fraud such as money-laundering or corruptibility , and in which the obligation to launch criminal proceedings is enshrined as a binding objective , may enable us to take a major step forwards , and I will therefore advise the Commission to examine this step with all due haste .
OLAF , the European anti-fraud office is one of the most important instruments the Commission has for fulfilling its obligation to combat fraud .
Accordingly , the Commission refused to put up with the fact that both European banks , the ECB and the EIB , contested the right of OLAF to include these two institutions in its investigations , citing their independent status .
This is why the Commission resolved on raising a complaint against these two banks at its last meeting , and I hope that Parliament approves this step .
The second recommendation in this report relates to assessing the legitimacy of the investigative measures undertaken by OLAF in the various European institutions .
It is the task of the monitoring committee for OLAF , which was set up at the same time as OLAF , to safeguard the independence of OLAF , however it cannot undertake the action mentioned in the report of monitoring internal investigative activities conducted by OLAF .
I am fully in agreement with the monitoring committee and the rapporteur on this point .
In other words , there is a loophole here which must be filled and I will examine the solution advocated in the report in the interests of moving things on .
There is one thing I would ask though : I believe we must prevent the debate on extending the legal basis for OLAF from leading to the misconception that OLAF does not now have enough authority .
No , there must be no undermining of OLAF ' s authority , and neither do I think this was the rapporteur ' s intention .
As such , I would ask you to give OLAF ' s work your full support , also in its present form .
Thank you , Commissioner Schreyer .
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 p.m.
VOTE
( Parliament approved the Commission proposal )
Heaton-Harris ( PPE-DE ) .
Mr President , on a point of order I should like to ask you for clarification of the Rules of Procedure : namely Rules 133 ( 2 ) and 138 ( 4 ) .
These are both about voting .
Is it not the case that on votes other than roll-call votes , the vote should take place initially by show of hands and only then , if there is some doubt , should we utilise the electronic voting system ?
That is quite right , Mr Heaton-Harris . I put the matter to a vote by a show of hands because none of the groups had requested voting by roll call .
You know that voting by roll call or electronic checking only takes place if Members of the House request it .
In this particular case , I can assure you there was a large majority in favour of the directive which we have just voted on .
Mr President , I was not referring to that particular vote but to votes in general .
It is obvious that some presidents do not look at the hands , so to speak , but go straight to the electronic voting system .
I was wondering whether this is the correct procedure .
I know it takes longer , but should we not always have a show of hands first ?
I shall , I assure you , Mr Heaton-Harris , pay particular attention to the show of hands .
I hope to see many hands raised when the time comes to vote .
Proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling , presentation and advertising of foodstuffs ( codified version ) ( COM ( 1999 ) 0113 - C4-0212 / 1999 - 1999 / 0090 ( COD ) ) ( Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market )
( Parliament approved the Commission proposal )
- Proposal for a Council regulation ( EC , Euratom ) implementing Decision 94 / 728 / EC , Euratom on the system of the Communities ' own resources ( codified version ) ( COM ( 97 ) 0652 - C4-0018 / 98 - 1997 / 0352 ( CNS ) ) ( Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market )
( Parliament approved the Commission proposal )
Procedure without debate :
Report ( A5-0106 / 1999 ) by Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna , on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries , on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the protocol setting out for the period 1 June 1999 to 31 May 2002 the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Democratic Republic of S?o Tom? e Principe on fishing off the coast of S?o Tom? e Principe ( COM ( 1999 ) 0550 - C5-0305 / 1999 - 1999 / 0228 ( CNS ) )
( Parliament approved the legislative resolution )
Recommendation for second reading ( A5-0105 / 1999 ) , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the harmonisation of examination requirements for safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road , rail or inland waterways ( C5-0208 / 1999 - 1998 / 0106 ( COD ) ) ( Rapporteur : Mr Koch )
Mr President , as far as the second reading is concerned , the Commission can only accept one proposed amendment put forward by Parliament .
The Commission hereby adopts this amendment and accepts it .
( The President declared the common position approved ( as amended ) )
Report ( A5-0104 / 1999 ) by Mr Koch , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Directive 94 / 55 / EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road ( COM ( 1999 ) 0158 - C5-0004 / 1999 - 1999 / 0083 ( COD ) )
( Parliament adopted the legislative resolution )
Report ( A5-0108 / 1999 ) by Mrs Schroedter , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the communication from the Commission in the field of the Structural Funds and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund : guidelines for programmes in the period 2000-2006 ( COM ( 1999 ) 0344 - C5-0122 / 1999 - 1999 / 2127 ( COS ) )
( Parliament adopted the resolution )
Report ( A5-0107 / 1999 ) by Mr Berend , on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy , Transport and Tourism , on the Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions of the European Union ( SEC ( 1999 ) 0066 - C5-0120 / 1999 - 1999 / 2123 ( COS ) )
( Parliament adopted the resolution )
Report ( A5-0069 / 1999 ) by Mr von Wogau , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the Commission White Paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty ( COM ( 1999 ) 0101 - C5-0105 / 1999 - 1999 / 2108 ( COS ) )
( Parliament adopted the resolution )
Report ( A5-0078 / 1999 ) by Mr Rapkay , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the European Commission ' s XXVIIIth Report on Competition Policy ( 1998 ) ( SEC ( 1999 ) 0743 - C5-0121 / 1999 - 1999 / 2124 ( COS ) )
( Parliament adopted the resolution )
Report ( A5-0087 / 1999 ) by Mr Jonckheer , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the seventh survey on state aid in the European Union in the manufacturing and certain other sectors ( COM ( 1999 ) 148 - C5-0107 / 1999 - 1999 / 2110 ( COS ) )
( Parliament adopted the resolution )
Report ( A5-0073 / 1999 ) by Mr Langen , on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , on the Commission Report on the implementation in 1998 of Commission Decision No 2496 / 96 / ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry ( Steel Aid Code ) ( COM ( 1999 ) 94 - C5-0104 / 1999 - 1999 / 2107 ( COS ) )
( Parliament adopted the resolution )
EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE- Own resources
.
( FR ) The European Union is apparently financed through four own resources .
The European budget is effectively sourced from VAT and on the basis of GDP , especially now that the Community preference system has been abandoned and the multiplication of free trade areas has put paid to customs duties and the common agricultural levy , which had already been cut back drastically by the Generalised System of Preferences .
Since then , Community VAT fraud and distortions in the calculation of GDP , the taxable basis for the fourth resource , have had a perceptible effect on the yield and justice of Community resources .
Since then , of course , this Europe with pretensions to federalism is now more than ever financed like the commonplace intergovernmental organisation it actually is , but which it refuses to see itself as .
This can be clearly seen in the regulation before us .
It shows a concern with the accounting involving own resources , the process of making them available or with the monitoring of declared amounts made available to the Commission .
Furthermore , the new Advisory Committee that has been created is made up of representatives of the taxpaying Member States .
This is a long way from offshoots such as the " Community criminal code " , the " European Public Prosecutor " or a European police force , with OLAF .
There is as yet no federal European tax .
All the same , a Europe with 25 members will be wanting a European tax on income , if not on profits , or the tax on CO2 to finance the budget for 2025 .
Koch Report ( A5-0105 / 1999 )
- ( FR ) It is with great satisfaction that I welcome this report on improved harmonisation in the training of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods .
In recent years , the transportation of dangerous goods nationally and internationally has increased considerably , increasing the risk of accidents .
Some of these risks were due to an inadequate awareness of the risks inherent in such transportation .
It therefore proved necessary , in the context of establishing the internal market , to adopt some measures intended to ensure better risk prevention .
Directive 96 / 35 / EC was a response to this requirement .
Firms involved in the transport of dangerous goods and in the loading and unloading operations related to such transportation have been obliged , quite rightly , to comply with regulations regarding risk prevention , whether road , rail or inland waterway transport is involved .
In order to facilitate achieving this objective , Directive 96 / 35 / EC provided for the appointment of safety advisers for dangerous goods who would have appropriate professional training .
This professional training would be targeted at awareness of the terms of the legislation , regulations and administrative conditions applicable to such transport .
While this represented significant progress at the time , the lack of specific terms governing the harmonisation of examination requirements proved to be a problem .
It therefore seemed essential to make good this omission in order to achieve the standardised , high-level training of safety advisers , but also in order to avoid any disparities between the costs of training , with a concomitant effect on competition between the firms of different Member Sates .
The Commission proposal seeks to ensure that the training of safety advisers is standardised . It outlines the minimum content of examinations and defines the role of the authorising body as well as the requirements demanded of the examining bodies .
Parliament voted in favour of this text . It did , however , table a number of amendments , most of which were adopted in the Council ' s common position , particularly regarding the need to draw up a questionnaire and statements on the authorisation of some document in the context of the ' specification of the examination arrangements proposed by the examination body ' .
In order to be realistic , I further support postponing the date for the application of these conditions until three months after the directive itself comes into force .
I shall conclude by emphasising that harmonising the professional qualifications of advisers will contribute to improving the quality of the service in the interest of users , to minimising the risks of accident likely to cause damage to the environment as well as significant damage liable to be harmful to any person who may come into contact with dangerous goods .
Koch Report ( A5-0104 / 1999 )
Last October I expressed my views on the Hatzidakis report on the transport of dangerous goods by rail .
The views I shall express today are not far removed from those I had then .
Essentially , my opinion is as follows : I deplore the fact that , in a field as crucial as the transport of dangerous goods , we keep putting off the adoption of harmonised standards to the detriment of human beings and the environment .
I shall point out that a directive on the approximation of Member State legislation on the transport of dangerous goods by road came into force on 1 January 1997 .
This included a number of interim conditions valid until 1 January 1999 .
This is the time when we should have expressed our opinion of the Commission proposal to put an end to the derogations .
In line with the usual procedure , it is the European Committee for Standardisation ( CEN ) which puts forward standards in this area , and they are then integrated in to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road signed in Geneva in 1957 ( known generally as ADR ) , applicable throughout Europe , whose terms and conditions form the basis for the legislation applicable within the EU .
The CEN has been unable to complete its work in the time allotted . Consequently , the Commission proposal under discussion today is intended to amend the directive in order to provide a short-term solution to these problems , rather than to put an end to the transitional arrangements , as should have been the case !
This is exactly what happened in the case of transport of such goods by rail , except for the fact that a time limit had been decided .
Right now we do not have the slightest idea as to when the CEN will be in a position to put forward practical proposals .
Until then , there is really no point in Member States amending their national regulations .
The report also accepts that some flexibility may be adopted , and grants States the option of adopting or applying alternative standards .
They may , therefore , continue to enforce their own standards regarding certain types of pressure vessel used for transportation , where there are no applicable European standards .
They may also adopt alternative conditions for transportation of a local nature and for ad hoc transportation .
In offering this explanation of my vote , therefore , I wished to express my deep dissatisfaction and my deep concern .
Schroedter Report ( A5-0108 / 1999 )
Mr President , I wanted to press home my explanation of vote by this oral explanation following on from the Schroedter report with regard to regional development .
I would urge both the Member States and the Commission to give sufficient consideration to the huge disparities in wealth which continue to exist between the different regions in Europe .
Not only the difference in income per capita but , above all , large disparities in employment continue to give cause for concern .
Despite the fact that the Community , through the structural funds among others , injects considerable sums into combating the disparities between regional development opportunities in Europe , these disparities continue to exist .
I therefore wonder whether the Community should not have a more drastic change of tack and , based on very strict evaluations , change its course and change its objectives in such a way as to make it possible to combat the disparities in wealth and employment more effectively .
Mr President , in relation to the Schroedter report , I am aware , and have had it confirmed to me by Mr Barnier , that the rules on additionality concerning Structural Funds apply only at the level of Member States and do not apply in a transitive and transparent way inside Member States in favour of self-governing regions such as Wales or Scotland .
I regard that as a very unsatisfactory state of affairs .
I hope we can revisit this issue at a later time .
I want it to be clear that though I voted in favour of the report , I have this important reservation .
- The Schroedter report speaks of the need to promote partnerships with regard to the spending of EU Structural Funds in Europe for the period 2000-2006 .
I believe that this is particularly important as EU Structural Funds are always spent in a manner which maximises the economic development of different regions when local and regional authorities are involved in the decision-making process for the spending of such funds .
As a Member of the European Parliament for the constituency of Leinster , I have always supported the need for the implementation of bottom-up schemes supported by national EU funds .
I believe that the Irish Government and the European Commission and different EU governments cannot alone decide on specific spending priorities .
I believe that local authorities and groups from the private and voluntary sector should be fully involved in the decision-making process for the spending of European Structural Funds .
For example , we have seen the success of the Leader I and Leader II schemes in Ireland in terms of the jobs which have been created through the administration of these programmes in rural parts of Ireland and within Europe .
The Leader III scheme is set to be implemented some time later this year .
The Leader programme at its core affords an opportunity for public , private and voluntary groups to pool their collective talents so as to create long-term and sustainable jobs in small and medium-sized enterprises in rural areas .
This is a classic example of how the partnership concept operates and such schemes must be supported in its broadest remit .
The European Peace and Reconciliation Fund has also been a success in creating jobs in border counties in Ireland .
Once again , there is active participation from groups from the private , public and voluntary sectors which suggest how best particular funding can be spent so as to help different local job creation projects within this region .
During the next round of EU Structural Funds 2000-2006 , other EU initiatives such as " Equal " and " Urban " will be operating .
These initiatives must also involve the participation of local authorities and local communities in an effort to identify where best European Structural Funds should be spent .
The rapporteur refers to the need to implement an integrated approach to new EU Structural Fund plans and programmes . They must promote a decentralised , efficient and comprehensive partnership based on the skills and commitment of all sectors in regional and local authorities .
This is very sensible because key economic and social difficulties in our country cannot be overcome unless there is key integration between national , European and local funding .
.
( FR ) This report takes us back to the question of why we even have a regional policy .
In order to reduce disparities between regions , of course .
But more especially because , even though at first sight the European market guarantees us improved functioning of the economy , it may also be a source of inequality .
Jacques Delors was accustomed to saying that the market was short-sighted and hence the political need to reduce disparities .
It is precisely this phenomenon of solidarity which lies behind the European social model , which we are all in favour of , and which gave rise to the idea of economic and social cohesion .
This is a real political objective , alongside economic and monetary affairs , drawn up in collaboration with Member States , regions and local communities , with the Commission itself responsible for issuing guidelines in order to show Member States what direction to take in order to achieve the objectives required in the context of programming .
This is why I shall support this report , despite regretting the fact that , for timetabling reasons , the European Parliament was only consulted at a very late date on the guidelines intended to assist Member States , regions and local communities in the programming of Objectives 1 , 2 and 3 .
Moreover , I would also urge this House to take into consideration the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs , adding a whole raft of thoughts on key areas such as combating social exclusion , support for the social economy and the implementation of the employment strategy .
Mrs Schroedter ' s report marks a further step towards the transparency and effectiveness of structural aid .
It highlights the increasing vital role of all the parties involved , chiefly those involved at a local level , who are the only ones able to define specific requirements and social problems , hence our determination to ensure that the partnerships to be established are true partnerships , which are decentralised and involve all the agents concerned .
This is the reason for the request which we are putting forward again to establish a management unit for structural assistance in the Member States , which would coordinate the implementation and administration of aid .
In order to do so , the monitoring committees must be opened to include Members of the European Parliament , associations and industrialists concerned by the projects and also civil society .
These guidelines represent a step towards the improved effectiveness of Community structural aid .
Amended again as such by the Schroedter report , they are a step in the right direction .
They also call for a general debate on the future of the cohesion policy after 2006 , but that is another subject .
In the meantime , let us support this first step .
- This report calls for drastic cuts in the level of illegal state aid dished out by some Member States .
Although I wholeheartedly support this aim , I would much rather see such aid eliminated altogether .
In my mind , illegal state aid amounts to little more than state-sponsored social dumping .
We all oppose social dumping when perpetrated by fat cat industry , we must also oppose it when perpetrated by governments .
If we are to have an effective single market that makes European industry globally competitive and generates wealth and employment for all Europeans , then we must have a level playing field .
Illegal state aid , by contrast , destroys competitive companies and creates unemployment .
There are , of course , cases when state aid can be necessary and legitimate , for example helping companies restructure .
In all such cases , however , strict criteria must be met and prior approval from the European Commission gained .
Whether we are talking about beef to France or about backhanders to industry , EU Member States must not be allowed to flout the law .
I enthusiastically support the report 's proposal to publish a " scoreboard " showing the amount of state aid per Member State .
Countries that claim to be at the heart of Europe but which systematically break its rules should be named and shamed and their hypocrisy revealed .
Member States cannot be allowed to proclaim European solidarity in public while trying to undermine the single market in private .
I take some mild encouragement from the fact that levels of state aid to industry in Europe appear to be falling .
Much remains to be done , however , and I call on the Commission to be far tougher in exposing the subsidy junkies of Europe .
.
( PT ) The Commission ' s main instruments for overcoming regional disparities are the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund . It is therefore crucial that the European Parliament drafts its broad indicative guidelines without threatening the principle of subsidiarity , given that establishing the development strategy for each country falls to the respective Member States .
Unfortunately , the European Commission has already moved ahead with its guidelines and Parliament ' s position on the programmes for 2000-2006 does not carry much weight .
It is nevertheless important to reiterate the need for the main priority of these funds to be the development of the countries and regions with the greatest problems and of the outermost regions , of which the Portuguese regions of the Azores and Madeira are examples . This must be done with the objective of achieving economic and social cohesion .
The truth is though , that the Commission ' s guidelines do not fully meet these objectives .
On the other hand , it is crucial that there are precise indications and sufficient funds in areas such as creating decent jobs - with rights - effectively promoting equality in law and opportunity , and supporting the social economy and solidarity . There must also be support for rural development , for small and medium-sized enterprises , for improving the quality of life of urban populations in deprived areas , specifically in the field of social housing , with a view to achieving sustainable urban development .
. ( IT ) While Article 158 of the EC Treaty aims to promote the harmonious development of all of the Communities , we must say that the goal of eliminating disparities is still a long way from being fulfilled , or rather in some cases , as with Italy ' s Objective 1 zones , paradoxically , disparities are being exacerbated , particularly because of the continuing weak approach of the structural apparatus to Community procedures and the persistent muddle of procedures ; despite the changes to the rules , the Community structures have not yet been streamlined .
In the first place , if administrative procedures are not simplified , it will be hard to attain Community objectives on reform , with a view to greater efficiency and concentration .
In this respect , the Commission document has shortcomings , as it makes no recommendation to the Member States to simplify procedures and national legislation for the presentation and examination of projects by the national authorities , and for their funding , execution and monitoring .
SMEs , micro-enterprises and craft businesses in particular are still " weak operators " , given that it is precisely for them that the regulatory and administrative constraints imposed by some Member States , including Italy , are major obstacles to accessing Structural Funds .
A considerable stumbling block is the fact that the regions and other operators find it impossible and are incapable of making plans in time .
In view of this , in accordance with the decision on the 97 / 99 guidelines ( Howitts report ) , the Commission should have consulted Parliament in time . In fact , it found a sort of convenient excuse in the shortening of the programming stage in the Member States , and it published the guidelines back in July 1999 , even before the new Parliament had taken up its legislative duties , thereby preventing Parliament itself from having any influence on the current content of the guidelines .
This is why the mid-term review , provided for under Article 42 of Regulation 1260 / 99 , will be of considerable importance .
In general , the current guidelines cannot be considered as clear or transparent .
They merely touch on the - nevertheless important - issue of the possibility of assessing the progress made in relation to verifiable objectives which are completely consonant with the strategies followed in Community policies , and they do not pay enough attention to the implications of enlargement , so much so that they do not contain specific provisions or clarifications as regards either regional and national authorities , or candidate countries .
That said , the differing approach adopted in the guidelines , which are not geared to geographical objectives , but rather to policy areas , can be considered as positive .
While in theory this may meet the need for concentration and therefore the efficiency of interventions , we cannot help wondering whether the current situation of the Objective 1 zones allows , in practice , a policy of integrated interventions , for which an operational instrument to coordinate the appropriations is necessary .
We could then , theoretically , also support the Commission ' s call for a management unit for structural assistance in the Member States , with the task of coordinating the implementation and administration of structural assistance there , provided that this unit does not become a centralising instrument at supranational level , but guarantees real help for those zones - and I stress this once again - which , owing to a whole string of converging negative factors , have not yet harnessed Structural Funds to sufficient levels , with the result that replacing the geographical objective with policy areas could , in fact , amount to a negative intervention .
The guidelines , as adopted by the Commission , are very limited because , instead of meeting the aim of providing guidance , they are providing a shopping list of possible measures , a shopping list which , as it fails to set priorities in ascending order , could even put the Member States on the wrong track by guiding them towards a series of proposals that is at odds with the desired concentration .
We could say that , in this state of affairs , we have once again missed the opportunity to really strengthen sustainable urban development by ring-fencing ever-increasing urbanisation and , hence the destruction of the countryside .
There has been no appropriate assessment of the importance of the global grant instrument , which could prove to be extremely useful in redressing the balance between urban and rural zones and , moreover , would accord proper status to local bodies which , being independent , could bring about the conditions for territorial development more quickly , and make a practical contribution to the efforts to reform the Structural Funds and to achieve the objectives of efficiency , concentration and administrative reform .
Rural areas must truly be seen as a resource which should be increasingly invested in , by encouraging young people to remain in rural areas in order to prevent their economic and social disintegration .
It is now a fact that in order to attain this goal , rural areas need to see the creation of new jobs , which are no longer solely connected with agriculture , in the traditional sense - although this sector is important for the protection of the environment and the preservation of biodiversity - but also , for instance , in rural tourism , sport and cultural activities , environmental projects , SMEs , services , and so on .
A genuine flaw in the guidelines are specific guidelines for the orchestration of coordination between the ESF and employment strategy . The fact that this coordination is being put into effect for the first time during the 2000-2006 programme period implies that the Member States really do need " guidelines " .
I must also stress that once again the Commission is , in fact , skirting the issue of practical action on equal opportunities .
In conclusion , the document is not particularly satisfactory , and in some aspects is disappointing .
Berend Report ( A5-0107 / 1999 )
.
( PT ) We basically agree with the assessment and the thoughts put forward by the rapporteur concerning the sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union .
We shall therefore confine ourselves to highlighting a few issues .
Firstly , and as the Commission itself states , it must be understood that the great improvement seen by some of the poorest regions in their per capita GDP between 1991 and 1996 was largely due to the inclusion of the new German L?nder in calculating the Community average from 1991 onwards . This obviously caused a slight reduction in the Union ' s per capita GDP level .
We also feel that it is particularly important to state that the recovery seen in some regions - where it did actually take place - was accompanied only to a limited extent by growth in employment . This consequently imposes the need for new development strategies , with a considerably greater level of attention needing to be paid to this area .
This situation shows that it would be a mistake to leave adopting measures for promoting employment to the exclusive internal control of the Member States , which is what the report proposes .
Finally , but no less importantly , I would like to refer to the rapporteur ' s proposal that , in future , this type of report should also include , amongst other issues , an analysis of the way cohesion is developing between the regions within each State .
The huge variety of situations and the varying development seen from region to region within the same State mean that there is a need for an in-depth assessment of this issue . This kind of assessment would enable us to allow and guarantee corrections to regional ( and other ) policies with a view also to guaranteeing internal cohesion within each Member State .
. ( FR ) The Berend report gives us an interesting analysis of the situation and economic development of the regions of the European Union .
Nonetheless , the French members of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group feels it cannot approve some of the statements made therein .
Paragraph 26 , for example , " Draws attention to the special need to consolidate the budget as a prerequisite for the success of economic and monetary union and the enlargement of the Union " .
At a time when , in order to fulfil the convergence criteria , Member States are forced to undergo a strict budgetary slimming regime , one that would be perfectly justified if they undertook it of their own initiative , the federalists are displaying an astonishing pecuniary gluttony .
As an admission of the failure of the cohesion policy and EMU , the lack of results is put down to the lack of money , with everyone competing in eloquence to demand more and more appropriations without anyone asking questions about the effectiveness of the money spent .
What can one say about a budgetary procedure which involves setting objectives for expenditure rather than a ceiling on expenditure and trying at all costs to find projects in order to spend the approved appropriations , rather than allocating the appropriations to existing projects ?
Expenditure becomes an end in itself , evidence of the success of a programme .
The statistics published by the European Commission in its sixth report do however show , as Mr Berend pointed out , the limitations of the policy being implemented :
The relative weight of the most wealthy regions of the European Union was strengthened between 1986 et 1996 , testifying to a concentration of wealth , jobs and activity in certain areas : Hamburg , Brussels , Antwerp , Luxembourg , the Paris region , Darmstadt , Oberbayern , Bremen , Vienna , Karlsruhe and Emilia-Romagna .
Quite the opposite of what the rapporteur stated , the establishment of economic and monetary union should exacerbate the exodus of population from the most outlying , the most rural and the least populated regions in favour of the central axes of the Union ( the Benelux countries , North West Germany , Northern Italy , the Parisian region , etc ) .
The poorest regions are gradually making good their underdevelopment .
In 1986 , the average of the 10 poorest regions amounted to 41 % of the overall Community GNP . In 1996 it was 50 % .
Progress is particularly marked in Portugal and Ireland .
In fact , if the rich are ever more wealthy and the extremely poor are less poor , then it seems that the middle-range regions , covered by Objective 2 , are experiencing an occasionally significant downturn in their GNP , and a worsening of the employment situation .
This phenomenon is particularly marked in France : the GNP of the Champagne-Ardennes region , which it is my honour to represent , has gone from 105 % to 94 % of the Community average , that of the Loire region has dropped from 95 % to 91 % , and that of the Auvergne from 89 % to 83 % .
This is a generalised tendency , sparing neither the Rh?ne-Alpes , nor Alsace .
It has been confirmed in Sweden and Finland , countries where unemployment has in fact increased to a worrying degree over the last few years , as in many regions of the United Kingdom .
It may therefore seem strange that , when the Structural Funds were reformed , Objective 2 , dedicated to industrial and rural areas undergoing economic restructuring , should have been sacrificed in favour of Objectives 1 and 3 . For the period 1999-2006 , the total appropriation for this Objective will be ECU 22.5 billion , a figure more or less identical to that for the period 1994-1999 .
The rural regions eligible under Objective 5b will be included among the main victims of this situation : in France , 27 % of the populations eligible for Structural Funds are going to lose their eligibility at the end of the transition period , a figure which is occasionally much larger in some regions such as the Loire region , Alsace or Lower Normandy , political strongholds of the right-wing that were the victims of the petty political vote chasing of the left-wing coalition government .
Based as it is on such choices , it is to be doubted whether regional policy can contribute to harmonious regional planning within the Member States of the European Union .
von Wogau Report ( A5-0069 / 1999 )
. ( FR ) Considering the employment situation in the Community and the European Union ' s declared ambition to steadfastly attack unemployment , the analysis of mergers carried out by the Commission should take elements other than competition into consideration .
As an example I would give the restructuring of ABB Alsthom Power . A sizeable delegation of employees of this firm from throughout Europe is visiting Strasbourg today .
The management of ABB Alsthom Power , following a merger carried out in June 1999 , announced restructuring where there is already the prospect of layoffs in a number of countries .
This damaging situation for employment raises many questions , particularly regarding the information given to the European Works Council , in existence since 1996 .
It suggests that the Community directive on European Works Councils must be updated and strengthened .
It also requires the monitoring of mergers taking employment , the environment and consumers into consideration .
Since the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs did not go far enough in this respect , I abstained .
.
( PT ) By proposing to apply the principle of subsidiarity in Community competition policy , the Commission is devolving to national authorities and courts the responsibility to take decisions and deal with abuses of dominant positions in relation to company agreements which create market distortion . Issues of mergers and state aid however , still remain within the notification system .
The position that has now been adopted aims to create more rapid ways of applying competition policy , moving towards applying Community law in national courts rather than at the European Court of Justice , and even aims at having specialised courts .
This partial renationalisation of competition policy could involve higher costs for Member States .
On the other hand , as the rapporteur points out , in the name of competition policy , public monopolies are often exchanged for private monopolies , with the privatisation of important industries and public companies , as has happened in Portugal , with harmful consequences for the country and its workers .
- ( FR ) The Commission ' s White Paper on the modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty ( now 81 and 82 ) certainly does not propose any " renationalisation " of competition policy , as some Members of the European Parliament fear .
But it does , at least , make it possible to anticipate some rather interesting options for development of the European Union .
In fact , taking note of the congestion of its services due to the prior notification system of state agreements likely to cause distortions in trade , and afraid of seeing the number of notifications increase yet further with the arrival of new Member States , the Commission is proposing to do away with the prior notification system of such agreements , and to apply competition rules at Member State level in a more decentralised fashion .
The most remarkable thing , in my view , is the message conveyed by this proposal : that the Commission is anticipating the consequences of enlargement and realising that this necessarily , and virtually automatically , requires reform of the centralised system .
Admittedly , this reform is one of increasing flexibility rather than dismantling .
Indeed , the White Paper envisages that the Commission will retain the supervision and central direction of the new system .
Moreover , the von Wogau report , which the European Parliament has just voted on , supports it in so doing .
But at the same time , one can clearly see that the upheaval caused by enlargement may lead to Community competences being limited and subsidiarity being extended .
It is a quite different Europe which is taking shape in the long term .
Is this not , indeed , what is so distressing to some Socialist Members of the European Parliament ?
The German Social Democrats voted against the von Wogau report because , in their view , it might break up European policy on competition , which is to say , in plain terms , attacking the standardising superstate .
Curiously , a number of employers agreed with them , preferring the European " one-stop " system , which they consider to be more economical and more stable legally .
Indeed , this is one advantage of the present system .
But , on the other hand , the wider view must also be taken , namely that the initial decentralisation which has been begun today may , in the long term , lead to greater freedom to take the requirements of each country into account , and this will be of benefit to everyone .
Rapkay Report ( A5-0078 / 1999 )
The Members of Parliament from the Lutte Ouvri?re Party shall not be voting in favour of these reports on European competition policy .
Competition is a war which has major concerns fighting each other , which constantly takes the form of layoffs , factory closures , not to mention extensive waste of production capacity .
We see a further example of this with the planned layoffs in Europe proposed by the corporation ABB Alsthom Power .
Eighteen million unemployed and 50 million poor people within the European Union , despite its being one of the wealthiest regions in the world : these are the results of this competition which the European institutions intend to promote .
The Commission ' s declared intention to regulate the conditions of competition on the European market is ridiculous , for the only law which competition respects is the law of the jungle where the most powerful squash or devour the weakest elements .
This is repulsive most of all in social terms .
The European Commission ' s report is a blunt demonstration of the fact that the Union institutions have no interest in anything except the major capitalist corporations who are engaged in this economic warfare and have no interest in the victims this causes .
There is nothing to prevent the spread of unemployment , nothing to protect employees , nothing to prevent the major concerns driving part of the population into poverty simply to make their shareholders richer still !
We acknowledge that this report does have one good point - it shows that the working class majority in society can expect nothing from the European institutions in terms of safeguarding their living conditions , and still less of improving them .
- ( FR ) In voting against this report , we are acting as spokespersons for all the men and women who in Seattle and throughout Europe expressed their rejection of a world reduced to strict commercial logic .
We are voting against this report on behalf of the development of public services , in memory of the victims of the Paddington rail disaster , killed not by fate but by an absurd determination to have competition where there should instead be regulations .
This report is essentially a primitive text with no inspiration other than the law of the jungle , for it is not competition that can solve the problems facing humanity at this turn of the century .
Whether it is a matter of the balance of the biosphere , culture or cooperation with the third world , excessive competition is a factor increasing regression and insecurity .
Do you imagine that the 18 million unemployed people in Europe are victims of too reticent an application of this competition policy ?
We are convinced that the opposite is true , and we do not think that state aid is by definition excessive .
Excessive in comparison with what iron rule , what criteria of efficiency ?
Finally , after Seattle , do you really think you can advocate increasing the role of the WTO ?
Only the legal advisers to multinationals could demonstrate such stubbornness .
Jonckheer Report ( A5-0087 / 1999 )
I am pleased to see the quality of the seventh report on state aid within the EU , and to see that it will henceforth be an annual report , and also that the Directorate-General for Competition will be making information , both general and specific , publicly accessible via its website .
I am happy with the rapporteur ' s treatment of state aid and I congratulate him on this .
There is too often a tendency to criticise state aid harshly as a measure causing distortion in competition .
Admittedly , an effective competition policy is a prerequisite for the proper operation of the internal market and of economic and monetary union .
However , as the rapporteur pointed out , such aid is occasionally essential and may , in addition to enabling the survival of a specific firm , make it possible to contribute to sustainable development ( Article 6 of the Treaty ) , services of general economic interest ( Article 16 ) and economic and social cohesion ( Article 158 ) .
Clearly though , it must be monitored , a task which falls to the European Commission .
The aid which Union Member States allocate each year to the sectors under consideration reached a total of EUR 95 billion in the period 1995-1997 , including 40 % allocated to the manufacturing sector .
This aid is considerably less than the previous period , 1993-1995 ( a 13 % drop in the total amount and a drop from 3.8 % to 2.6 % in the amount of aid to the manufacturing sector ) .
This downturn in aid is chiefly due to the reduction in aid granted to the new German L?nder .
Like the rapporteur , I deplore the fact that the figures given in the report do not cover all state aid .
The European Commission must make good these omissions as soon as possible .
It must also cooperate with the Member States in order to improve the quality of data in good time , which is to say in time for the ninth report .
I think it would be a good idea if the Commission published a register specifying the amount of state aid per Member State .
I also deplore the fact that the European Parliament has been totally excluded from the Advisory Committee on State Aid .
In order to compensate for this situation , the European Commission should be obliged to make regular reports to us .
I shall conclude with one aspect of the use of state aid which I feel is particularly dangerous : the matter of aid resulting in businesses relocating from one Member State to another , with the risk of subsidy hunting which makes no contribution to the shared objectives of the EU .
This is why I should like to see the next report on state aid include some assessment of the effect of such aid on employment , industry and craft businesses in the beneficiary countries .
Langen Report ( A5-0073 / 1999 )
In the important debate on competition this morning , I expressed my views on Mr Langen ' s report on the implementation in 1998 of the sixth Steel Aid Code .
Just as the Court of Justice recognised in its order of 3 May 1996 , the iron and steel industry is particularly sensitive to disturbances to its competitive operation .
Establishing a system of aids to this sector intended to ensure the survival of successful firms was therefore justifiable , even though Article 4 ( c ) , of the ECSC Treaty prohibited any sort of state aid to the steel industry .
This , indeed , is the purpose of the sixth Steel Aid Code .
At the same time , it is , of course , essential to avoid any disturbance of competition conditions or of the markets , hence the importance of regulating such aid .
It is therefore essential to continue to restrict state aid to research and development , environmental protection and aid granted in the event of plant closure .
In the same way , it is vital for Member States to fulfil their obligation to report to the Commission on the aid granted to their steel undertakings , as stipulated under Article 7 of the Steel Aid Code .
The Commission suggests that Member States submit their reports within a time limit of two months following the end of each six-month period or , at least , annually , without the need for reminders .
Like the rapporteur , I am pleased with the Commission report , but I did deplore the fact that the report did not cover every aspect of the aid .
Although the Steel Aid Code is expressed in a very clear way , the Commission has , on a number of occasions , authorised aid for the steel industry even though such aid did not fall within the categories set out in the code .
In the interests of equality , there are grounds to either apply the Steel Aid Code strictly or modify the Code if the Commission wishes to authorise types of aid other than those legally acceptable at the moment .
Finally , we have the problem of the consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty .
The aid system must effectively be continued beyond 2002 .
My feeling in this respect is that only a Council Regulation can provide the necessary legal certainty and ensure an official ban on any aid not covered by the code .
For all these reasons I voted in favour of the Langen report , and I now await the Commission ' s response to our requests and demands .
( The sitting was suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m. )
Oil slick off the French coast
The next item is the Commission statement on the oil slick off the French coast .
Mrs de Palacio will open the debate on behalf of the Commission .
Mr President , I shall be speaking on behalf of the PPE-DE Group , but also as an elected representative for Brittany , and I am therefore directly concerned and shocked by these events .
Together with Mrs Grosset?te and the PPE-DE Group , we tabled a motion for a resolution .
I am pleased to see that we have today arrived at a compromise motion .
The Erika shipwreck is a truly European issue , firstly because it is disfiguring and polluting some of the most beautiful beaches in Europe , with extremely serious consequences for tourism , people who earn their living from the sea and environmentalists , and also because the underlying issue is the regulation and monitoring which ought naturally to be on a European scale .
A disaster of this scale could almost certainly not have occurred along the American coastline , and why ?
Because the Americans managed to learn their lesson from the Exxon Valdez disaster and in 1990 to draw up the Oil Pollution Act , which makes the parties concerned aware of their responsibilities , as it makes it possible to hold the charterer liable , and is more restrictive , and , more especially , more carefully monitored thanks to various regulations and , in particular , the existence of the American coastguard .
If , I repeat , we had had regulations of this type , then this disaster would surely not have occurred .
This is why we think that the applicable legislation must be reviewed , particularly the 1992 protocol which has exempted the shipowners , in this case the oil tanker charterer , from any liability .
Well , if the charterer is exonerated , then of course he is less concerned with the inspections which oil companies are responsible for .
The regulations must therefore be reviewed , and I thank you , Commissioner , for highlighting the inadequate features of current European regulations .
Moreover , as you said , monitoring must above all be stepped up : that of the flag state , that of the classification societies .
You told us that RINA was an Italian classification register recognised by the Commission .
What are the conditions for this recognition ?
What guarantees are there of its reliability ?
You are going to commission a fact-finding mission .
We await the outcome with great interest .