|
|
Speeches in the European Parliament
MEPs attend parliamentary plenary sessions where they speak either on their own behalf or as committee rapporteurs or spokesmen for their political groups, and also vote on current European Union legislation. Plenary speeches are normally limited to just a few minutes. Here are Eryl's most recent plenary speeches. 10th March 2004: EU-Israel Agreement on Scientific and Technical Co-operation 12th January 2004: Nuclear energy 16th December 2003: Measuring instruments 17th November 2003: Investment in research 17th November 2003: Trans-European networks 17th November 2002: European research area 23rd September 2003: EU budget 2nd September 2003: Investment and WTO 2nd July 2003: Investment and competition 2nd June 2003: Energy liberalisation 2nd June 2003: Macrofinancial assistance to third countries 12th May 2003: Airport procedures on health issues 12th May 2003: Intelligent Energy for Europe 12th May 2003: Ministerial meeting of the European Space Agency 27th March 2003 - Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis 26th March 2003 Outcome of the European Council (Brussels, 21-22 March, 2003) 10th March - General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) 12th February 2003: Spring Council debate 10th February 2003: WTO and agriculture debate 10th February 2003: WTO and generic medicines debate 6th November 2002: Nuclear proposals package 25th September 2002: Outcome of World Summit on Sustainable Development 2nd July 2002 Implementation of framework programmes 2002-2006 (research) 11th June 2002: Scientific funding in the European Parliament 14th May 2002: European Research Area (2002-2006) 14th May 2002: Question Time (Commission) 9th April 2002: 2000 discharges 13th March 2002: Transatlantic relations including steel import tariffs (continuation) 27th February 2002: Barcelona European Council 4th February 2002: Energy performance of buildings 16th January 2002: Energy liberalisation (in presence of Jose Maria Aznar) 11th December 2001: The link between environment and trade 14th November 2001: European Research Area (Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006) October 2001: Preparations for the Fourth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation October 2001: Energy efficiency labelling for office equipment July 2001: Electricity from renewable energy sources 14th March 2001: Preparatory work for the Stockholm European Council (23/24 March 2001) 13th March 2001: Energy efficiency 15th February 2001: Research guidelines 2002 - 2006 13th February 2001: Commission work programme for 2001/Nice 31st January 2001: Energy efficiency labelling 15th November 2000: Promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources 20th September 2000: Measures to be taken following the fuel crisis and the rise in oil prices 13th June 2000: Historical liabilities from JRC nuclear activities 17th May 2000: Broad outlines of economic policies 17th May 2000: European research area 16th May 2000: British Nuclear Fuels at Sellafield 11th April 2000: Outcome of the European Council in Lisbon, 23-24 March 2000 16th March 2000: Information society 20th January 2000: Fluorescent lamp ballasts 13th December 1999: World Trade Organization, Millennium Round 26th October 1999: EC and ESCS budgets for 2000 7th October 1999: Nuclear accident in Japan 5th October 1999: ALTENER Multinannual plan, 1998-2002 5th October 1999: SAVE Multinannual plan, 1998-2002
10th March 2004: EU-Israel Agreement on Scientific and Technical Co-operation Mr President, normally a scientific and technological cooperation agreement is straightforward, very welcome and an occasion for optimism, especially if it is the successor to earlier agreements on which good scientific work has been done. Sadly, this agreement cannot be straightforward. From the scientific point of view, collaboration with Israel is no doubt useful in the Sixth Framework Programme. It is a strong scientific country and, as we have heard, some very useful Mediterranean-wide projects, including research into water treatment, have been carried out and could be carried out in future. However, we are not discussing a normal country or a normal part of the world. Israel is not a normal country because many of the present government's actions are completely unacceptable: building a fence, occupying territory, breaching human rights, using repression. Despite some joint scientific work with Palestinians, I have had complaints regarding barriers to some of that work. Our Group considered very carefully whether to vote in favour of this agreement. There are two perfectly valid, tenable points of view. One could say - as some will - that signing or ratifying this agreement will be perceived as giving the green light and an encouraging signal and endorsement to the actions of the Israeli Government. That is certainly not the intention. In the past the European Parliament has very successfully asked for scientific cooperation to be frozen. Some Members advocate voting against this agreement and indeed taking much further action to show the Israeli Government our disapproval. A second alternative - and the one that I recommend - is to consider that science and research are positive, that the results of that work are of benefit to human beings and that this allows dialogue and provides an opening for work with Palestinians. Other points can certainly - and probably will - be made in political dialogue. There may be cause for action elsewhere. We have had long discussions and have come to the conclusion, in majority - although not unanimously - that the second alternative, to put faith in the possibility that the scientific dialogue, without any endorsement of the Israeli Government's actions, will bring some progress. We have great reservations. We want Palestinian participation without barriers or handicaps. Of course we want no nuclear, military or dual-use research. We want a very close monitoring of the situation. We want the EU-Israel Research Committee to report regularly so that we can see whether this act of faith in the value of science has been worthwhile or has been misinterpreted by a government whose actions we condemn.
Mr President, Mrs Stihler is unwell and is unable to be attend. I hope you will forgive me for taking 30 seconds of her time. Mr Fischler said in his presentation that these reforms were based on the same principles as earlier reform. That is so, but they are considerably less ambitious in their scope, even in the Commission's proposals. He also said that the aims were identical, in that one of the aims was sustainability. He presumably means economic, environmental and social sustainability, competitiveness and compatibility with the WTO, since we must not look at agricultural issues in a vacuum. It is just one of the EU's policies and there are others – those concerned with world trade – that must influence our thinking, as must enlargement and its implications. We are talking about the poorest regions, in some cases, of some of the poorer countries in the EU. That is quite clear and presumably explains the less ambitious proposals. The budget may be neutral, but there are differential consequences for farm workers and farm owners, which is one of the problems the PSE Group has with these suggestions. As a whole, we are strong supporters of reform. We are perfectly well aware that the old regime is untenable for very much longer and that decoupling will come, and we are aware of WTO obligations. However, we are also aware of the social consequences and have misgivings that the Commission has not sufficiently borne those consequences in mind. More consideration should be given to the fate of workers who are working for employers in the farming industry. There can be no doubt that Parliament's proposals will not help in the Doha development round. They will - mistakenly, perhaps, but certainly - be seen as nonreform and as a move away from what is expected by the poorest countries in the world. That is absolutely clear and as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, it is something I have to emphasise while supporting the overall PSE position. 12th January 2004: Nuclear energyMr President, I would like to thank the rapporteurs and the Commissioner, and commiserate with her for her illness. Although she was actually speaking to Mrs Ahern, I hope that whatever happens to Kyoto, we would pursue policies on a no-regrets basis, which, apart from helping the climate, make complete business sense. The package is, as the Commissioner said, a response to the European Parliament, which is in turn responding to the very real fears and concerns of European citizens, as is our duty - my voice sounds rather similar to yours, Commissioner, I apologise: I too have a cold. Whatever one's views about the future of nuclear power, mine are considerably less optimistic than those of others who have spoken. I believe that market liberalisation means there is practically no future for nuclear power without a huge change in the ability of states to promote it. I believe that technical advancement in other forms of energy, including perhaps nuclear fusion, make the future very unsure. We are talking about the present, namely the present dangers of nuclear accidents and the present uncertainty surrounding the disposal of existing radioactive waste. I regret very much that the changes which the Convention could have made to the Euratom Treaty were not seized upon - in great cowardice - by Member States and by the Convention. As far as radioactive waste is concerned, there is no agreed solution. The Royal Society in the United Kingdom pointed out that the so-called solution of deep geological burial has many uncertain points which need to be solved technically. There is no public acceptance either in my country or in many others of deep-level storage. We must look at other possibilities, including partition and transmutation. The issue of decommissioning funds is one that has been rightly raised and is of great concern. I am glad that has been tackled. The risk of accidents, with which Mr Seppänen's report and your draft directive are concerned, has also been strengthened because of 11 September, as has the even more serious security question which is now facing us. I read today that Germany has come up with a somewhat bizarre solution which appears to be to cover nuclear power stations with artificial fog! Frankly, we need to be a little bit more constructive than that. I have some doubts about the capability of the European Commission to have the resources and rigour which our citizens demand. Therefore, my Group, although it supports the two reports, wants a lot more from you, Commissioner, and from our Member States. I hope that will be forthcoming. Citizens really worry about these issues.
16th December 2003: Measuring instruments Mr
President, I would like to join in the congratulations just expressed to our
rapporteur. At this time of night I cannot match him in using words skilfully in
the form of puns as he did in his speech, but, well done! I
am pleased that we will be able to present this to the public as a move towards
efficiency and clarity. This will not get big headlines in newspapers for the
rapporteur or anyone else, but it is extremely important for the public to have
clarity and security in the measuring instruments used as listed for items of
public health, public safety, public order, protection of the environment and,
indeed, the levying of taxes and duties and the protection of consumers and fair
trading. All those public goods need accurate, trustworthy measurements, and in
the European Union we need to get rid of the barriers to trade that might exist
without such instruments. A
quite considerable range of instruments has been mentioned, including water
meters, taxi meters, exhaust-gas analysers and breathalysers. We support, as Mr
Glante has said, the principle of optionality: it is quite reasonable to give
Member States a choice as to whether or not they regulate. But with that choice
goes a responsibility not to put up trade barriers or to be unfairly
competitive. The comitology issues that concern us appear to have been solved.
This is an example of the new approach to harmonisation. We have to bear in mind
that there may well be technological advances or problems we have not heard or
thought of, perhaps, for example, electromagnetic interference. The
simplification, clarity and conciseness of the rapporteur are helpful. I am glad
that the Commission agrees and I look forward to the Council of Ministers taking
the same approach. The joint declaration on the procedures for ensuring
conformity with the review of texts will be welcome. I
am glad that the countries which will be joining us in May 2004 will have an
example of how Member States can make decisions in the context of a European
Union which wants fair competition and does not want barriers to trade. I am
sure that they have been following this work with interest. We hope there will be an agreement at second reading. Our committee has a reputation for putting in hours of work in the form of informal trialogues. Some of us sometimes question whether we are misguided in doing that in comparison with other committees such as the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. But my belief is that, so far, we have managed in an assertive way to put across our points of view. I congratulate the rapporteur again.
17th November 2003: European research area Liese
report on Community funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells Mr
President, this Parliament gave its views clearly during the reading on the
Sixth Framework Programmes. Those views were reinforced by the Committee on
Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy last week: we are in favour of the
development of therapies for dreadful diseases by the use of embryonic stem
cells under very strict conditions, with no creation of embryos for research
with the use of supernumerary embryos, with the consent of parents and without
payment. I regret the intolerant anti-European rejection of subsidiarity by some
colleagues this afternoon. We believe that the exploration of other forms of
stem cell, and indeed comparisons, are essential. Now
to the matter of dates. I regret that the Commission chose to introduce a date,
because it has encouraged some Members of this Parliament to put forward even
more absurd dates. This has been done in a rather sly, hypocritical and
misleading way in that not simply different dates, but also different procedures
- with stem cell lines and not with embryos - have been proposed. The hypocrisy
of those amendments should be exposed so that Members are absolutely clear on what
they are voting. I
have a direct question for the Commissioner. Is it true that the dates suggested
by Mr Nisticò and others would drastically reduce the availability of stem cell
lines to make the European Union totally dependent on the United States, Israel
and other countries for lines under patent? Would this damage European Union
science and, most importantly of all, would it damage the prospects of helping
people who are suffering from terrible diseases?
Mr
President, regarding the order in which amendments would be voted, I would
suggest that when we look at those amendments referring to the date we take
first those furthest away from the Commission's proposal, which includes a date.
Those would be Amendment 68 from Mr Bowe and others, followed by Amendments 10,
64, 25 and 24. That would be a more
logical order, given that they are furthest away from the Commission's
suggestion. I hope the voting lists can be changed along those lines. President: I
will make sure that the services concerned are aware of your suggestion.
Reply from Commissioner Busquin: (translation of original) I
would like to finish by addressing the amendments that Mr Nisticò has put down
for this plenary session. I
recognise the enormous and continual efforts that he has made in order to find a
compromise. Moreover, he made a
similar effort during the Parliament's vote on this matter in June 2002 - it was
his amendment which was the basis for the consensus upon which the Commission
proposal is founded. However,
Mr Nisticò, the amendments that you present at this session sidestep the issue
- and by saying that I respond to Mrs McNally's question. When
you link cells, supernumerary embryos and cell lines that already existed on 27
June 2002, you totally resrict research. I
would also like to clarify for the sake of Mr Liese - who of course knows this
dossier very well, but who occasionally confuses different concepts, that of the
lines and that of the dates - that no European stem cell lines existed on 27
June 2002. We are certain about this.
Existing European stem cell lines appeared later, in Sweden.
(...)
If, therefore, you introduce this amendment, you will create the following problem: the only stem cell lines that existed before 27 June 2002 are American, Israeli and Asian. This means that we are linked to commercial mechanisms; American lines are available, but only under a commercial contract. This means that you do not allow Europe to have the slightest possibility to develop this interesting field of research; you do not allow us to go from embryo lines to existing stem cell lines. More of them exist now: there are two in the UK, seven in Sweden (three at Karolinska and four at Gothenburg), but they appeared after 27 June 2002. The amendment would put Europe at a disadvantage for two reasons: firstly, from the point of scientific value, and secondly because lines from before 27 June 2002 are available only commercially. This is totally against the spirit engendered by many, and that which is also the view of the Commission; in any case, we cannot make a profit on supernumerary stem cells. That has been very clearly stated. We do not want the commercialisation of stem cell lines; such lines must be put at the disposal of the European scientific community
17th November 2003: Investment in research Mr
President, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteur and the
Commissioner. We are lucky to have two committed men, both of whom realise the
importance of science. I was re-reading the hearings documents on the
appointment of the Commission and I was very pleased to see how far the
Commission has gone towards the objectives he set out at that time. At the moment the whole credibility of European Union Member States is at stake. They have made declarations,including the one made in Lisbon, but they have not taken the action needed to put those declarations into effect. Indeed, in some Member States they have done precisely the opposite of what is needed. The
rapporteur, like many of us, endorses the Commission's recommendations and the
action plan it has put forward. We plead with Member States to implement what
they have said in their declarations. We need the Finance Ministers of the
European Union to look towards the seventh framework programme and the necessary
funding. We need to train and retain scientists; women scientists in particular
are a wasted resource. There needs to be coordination between research
infrastructure and regional policy. We must find out why countries like Sweden
and Finland can do that whilst other countries cannot. We have much to learn
from them. I
entirely support the creation of a European Research Council to give some
coordination and coherence to our work, particularly in basic research. A recent
meeting with astronauts made me more aware of the potential for science in
Europe if we take the messages of the Lisbon declaration seriously. Almost all
of us know them off by heart, but Member States have so far taken very little
action on them.
Reply from Commissioner Busquin (translation of original) To respond to the question put by Mrs McNally, it is through such programmes, which ask questions such as "what are we going to do?", that we manage to overcome the problem. The Member States, for their part, in the '3% Action Plan' and the Growth Initiative, are invited to say "this is what we are going to do. Here is our programme to arrive at the 2010 objective". The role of the Commission, therefore, will be to stimulate - we cannot take a position in place of that of the Member States, but we can stimulate, show best practice and stay with the processes of 3% (of EU GDP to be spent on research) by 2010. This is an indispensable process if Europe is to maintain its position in the world, but is dependent on financing and on the priority given to research policy. You have understood this well and I thank you very much for the support that you have given to this policy.
17th November 2003: Trans-European networks Congratulations
to our two rapporteurs, firstly Mrs Read, who has always been a doughty
supporter of telecommunications. I am very pleased that she realises, as we all
do, the added European value of telecommunications for all of the Lisbon agenda. Firstly,
on the trans-European networks, when I arrived in this Parliament, the talk of
the town was the Delors White Paper, one of the main planks of which was
European networks. I am delighted that the Commissioner and his staff have been
adaptable enough to recognise that if the proposals put forward are not working
as originally designed, the best thing to do is to, for example, concentrate on
fewer projects in a more focused way and to increase the Commission
contribution, since the 10% clearly was not stimulating the sort of initiatives
we wanted. I strongly support their flexibility. I
also support, of course, the IDABC Programme as outlined by Mrs Read. I believe
that one of the neglected parts of the Lisbon agenda is greater social cohesion,
which the IDA Programme will contribute to greatly, as well as, of course, the
knowledge-based economy. The
word 'interoperability' is appearing increasingly frequently. We are a continent
comprising many small countries with different traditions. If we do not ensure
that our systems can be brought together and work in an interoperable way, we
are doomed to be less successful than continental blocs such as the United
States. Therefore I strongly support the interoperability aim of IDA and its
support of community policies as outlined by Mrs Read, those that are
traditional -agriculture, employment statistics - and those that are newer -
civil protection, humanitarian aid and justice and home affairs. I am also
interested in making our citizens feel safer and, of course, in the internal
market. Turning
to Mr Clegg's report, I would again like to congratulate him. He and others on
the committee have been very vociferous in saying that it is simply not enough
to pass directives and to put in place legislation if Member States then feel
free to transpose that legislation according to some personal timetable which
does not make Europe more competitive or promote social cohesion. Commissioner,
I am glad that in your eighth report you bring out some of your tough
instruments and make it clear that you will instigate infringement proceedings
against those Member States which fail to transpose. This should be done far
more frequently in a whole range of Community policy areas, because there are
some Member States that take advantage of the markets created by those Member
States that do transpose, while not playing fair themselves. I also agree with Mr Clegg that accession countries should be looked at. Congratulations to both rapporteurs.
23rd September 2003: EU budget Mr President, I should like
to congratulate Mr Mulder for the very collegiate and cooperative way in which
he has worked with other committees, and to Mrs Gill for the same reason. The
budget lines dealt with by my committee are the most complex of any committee.
We cover something like 120 budget lines with reference to ten different
directorates-general. Because of
that complexity, plus the changes in nomenclature, the activity-based budgeting
and enlargement, it has been a difficult task to give an overall view.
I would like to thank the Commission and those staff in its
directorates-general who have been patient in their explanations and have
explained their rationale for preparing the preliminary draft budget.
I cannot offer the same praise to the Council of Ministers, because in
our committee we have seen a whole succession of very large cuts with no
rationale whatsoever provided as to why they should have taken place. I find it
impossible to work on that basis. You cannot have a dialogue when one side does
not explain its reasoning for what it is doing. There may be some sense behind
the suggestions, but it is not at all clear to us.
Let me take as one example the preparatory action for security research,
of enormous interest to the citizens of Europe.
Why has that been cut? I am delighted that Mr Mulder is prepared to
support us in reinstating the money which was suggested for this action, which
many of us on our committee think is important. We want an explanation about
Chernobyl. We lay great emphasis on SMEs, as you will see, and I look forward to
some sort of rational discussion with the Council about their motivation for
making cuts which appear to contradict every policy of the European Union.
2nd September 2003: Investment and WTO Mr. President, we all realise that both Commissioner Lamy and
Commissioner Fischler will need to stay within their mandate. Within that
mandate are included the Singapore issues and, in particular, investment.
Commissioner Lamy, you know from the last time we discussed this in this Chamber
that the PSE group feels it is quite inappropriate to pursue, of the Singapore
issues, investment in particular. Do
you feel that the mood amongst developing countries is such that we risk causing
great disruption to the discussions if we insist, against their will, on
pursuing the question of investment? Frankly, in our opinion, this is not the
time. I would be pleased to hear whether you accept that we ought to drop the
push for investment to be included. Lamy,
Commission. - McNally has reiterated the opinion of the socialist group on
investment. I will also make a comment in reply to Mrs. Lucas. How are we to
reconcile our wish to see a multilateral agreement on a number of principles
governing investment to be brought into focus at the WTO with our hopes for
development? Firstly, we think that investment is an important factor in
development, that a certain number of simple rules based on transparency, the
predictability of investment regimes for instance, make an important
contribution to investment. Secondly we are prepared to take into account
certain concerns raised by developing countries in this negotiation, such as the
view expressed now and again that these rules would reduce their political
sovereignty. We are ready to reply to this question by presenting a project that
brings a certain number of general rules which could be adopted in those
developing countries wishing to do so without obliging those countries who do
not wish to do so to apply them. This is one way to take into account some of
the objections. I
would like to remind Mrs. McNally and Mrs. Lucas in passing that developing
countries are divided on this question, that some are in favour
and others are not, which is, by the way, the case for a number of other
subjects. At the WTO there is not a Northern front for every question or a
Southern front for other questions.
2nd July 2003: Investment and competition Mr
President, we welcome, and do not take for granted, Mr Lamy's cooperative
approach in working with Parliament. There
are issues which the Socialist Group, like others, finds difficult: the
Singapore issues, especially investment and competition. Of course we appreciate
the importance of both. On
investment: currently there are over 2000 bilateral investment treaties. That
leads to great complexity for developing countries and an imbalance of power,
which will not disappear with a multilateral treaty. On
competition: naturally domination by just a few companies leads to high costs,
and developing countries are the prime victims. However, we are still concerned
about our approach to the Doha Agenda, and we are not yet convinced that the WTO
is the right place or that this is the right time to discuss investment and
competition. Like
the Commissioner, we have listened very carefully to developing countries. We
know that they show very great disquiet about the Singapore issues. The
declaration of the trade ministers of the least developed countries of 2 June
made this absolutely clear. Some of the larger developing countries are
downright opposed to negotiations on these issues. Therefore,
there is no way near the explicit consensus which is needed. What should the EU
do in those circumstances? Should we persist and foist an agenda on unwilling
developing countries? If we do, there will be a price to pay in other
negotiations! There are many more important issues and they are identified in
our resolution and in the Commission's mandate. Let us concentrate on them at
Cancun.
2nd June 2003: Energy liberalisation Mr President, I am pleased to announce that in the
Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy this evening the last
piece of the jigsaw, Mr Clegg's package, was voted through unanimously. The Lisbon aspiration has been an ambitious one,
and it has taken dogged and indefatigable rapporteurs, as well as a quite
determined Commissioner, to reach the stage we are at tonight. We have considerable experience with the original
rather limited liberalisation directive in our Member States. We have seen that
there has been market opening in some countries to 100% of customers, that there
has been an unbundling of network operators in all Member States to some extent,
but not completely, and there has been a limited increase in clarity and
transparency of regulation. However, those earlier directives were inadequate.
There is still market dominance and predatory, anti-competitive behaviour in
some Member States, and some European citizens have not benefited from an
enlarged and opened market in particular countries. I have no fears that what is being suggested is
wild and savage liberalisation because we have insisted on regulation
unbundling, public service guarantees and labelling for environmental impact
which leads to informed choice by customers. We have seen that cross-subsidies
will be prevented, particularly the quite scandalous use of decommissioning
funds in the nuclear sector. That is not an anti-nuclear remark, that is a
pro-fair play remark. There are risks from liberalisation, but they do
not concern security of supply. Types of energy choices can be affected,
however. We need to look at that. Environmental protection need not be at risk,
nor need access by the public to energy. Indeed, fuel poverty has decreased
thanks to liberalisation as carried out in the UK. The risks are to research. That is an important
risk and we must draw our attention to that in future work. And there is a risk
of skills being lost; again this is a risk to which Member States and the
European Union must pay attention. Tomorrow's vote is an historic one, though we call
many votes historic in this Parliament. It is an important move forward.
Amendment 6 to the Mombaur report should not be admissible. It is not something
that was covered earlier, but I commend those who have worked hard on this
package. We will have a better use of energy in Europe because of it.
2nd June 2003: Macrofinancial assistance to third countries Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr
Belder, and indeed the European Commission, for producing the interesting 2001
report. Mr Belder has adopted a commendable analytical approach and is looking
ahead, taking advantage of this particular moment in time when change looks more
possible that it has hitherto. The macrofinancial assistance instrument - one of
several - brings about reform efforts. It is associated with the International
Monetary Fund and World Bank programmes. It is for exceptional crisis
situations. The EU is not an international financial institution but at crisis
times our foreign policy objectives can be linked with what we do with
macrofinancial assistance. It is conditional on the actions of the beneficiary
countries. The 2001 report is an interesting one. It looks at
countries, mainly in the Balkans, but also Tajikstan, Georgia and Armenia. It
looks in detail at why they have problems, what efforts are being made to solve
them and where the problems are. In each country there are balance of payments
difficulties, but quite encouraging growth figures in all three. I am pleased to
see that analysis has taken place. I hope that the relevant parliamentary
delegations will look at the analysis. Mr Belder is absolutely right, however, to say that
the programme is currently inefficient, ineffective and certainly lacks a solid
legal base. We have heard from Commissioner Lamy that the moment is not quite
right, given the attitude of the Council of Ministers, for changing the legal
base, but I sense some optimism that post-Convention, in the next IGC, it may
well be possible to move to a much more appropriate legal base with QMV and
codecision by Parliament. In the meantime we hope that the Commission will bring about an in-depth evaluation of the criteria that it uses for the macrofinancial assistance and we must do our part. This Parliament does not take seriously enough its monitoring duty. This is an area in which it is essential that we do so. In due course I look forward to legislative proposals from the Commission. Once again I thank the rapporteur.
12th May 2003: Airport procedures on health issues Mr
President, recently, along with other passengers, I was kept on board a flight
from London to Brussels for two hours after landing at Brussels, because of the
presence on that flight of a Chinese gentleman travelling from Toronto who was
quite clearly rather ill and was suspected of having SARS. During
our two hours on board, it was clear to us that neither the Belgian health
authorities nor the airline concerned, British Midland, had the faintest idea
what to do in such an eventuality. I am glad to be able to tell you the person
tested negative. However, I would be grateful, in case similar incidents should occur, which they undoubtedly will, if you could contact both the Commission and the Council of Ministers, representing the Member States, so that appropriate measures can be put in place and so that both airlines and national health authorities know what to do if someone they suspect of being gravely ill is on board one of their planes.
12th May 2003: Intelligent Energy for Europe As
rapporteur for the Intelligent Energy for Europe Programme, I would like to
thank all three institutions for their cooperation in enabling us to reach
successfully a second reading: the European Commission, of course, for coming
forward with the proposals, the Council of Ministers and the three presidencies
involved in this - the Spanish, Danish and above all the Greek presidencies -
and especially the Members of the European Parliament and the staff of the
European Parliament. I am pleased we have been able to find a compromise at
second reading between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers by working
very quickly and in fact by foregoing the normal full procedure for codecision
matters. This is frankly not the best way to work, and I am sorry that the
Council of Ministers is beginning to expect accelerated procedures as the norm.
They are less transparent and less democratic and often lead to temporary
misunderstandings, especially when negotiations are conducted - as they
inevitably are - in only one language. The
title of this programme is self-explanatory. We need only imagine the contents
of a programme called 'stupid' energy. In such a programme we would use fossil
fuels, which we know to be finite and which emit CO2, as quickly as possible and
would burn them just as inefficiently and profligately, in a way which the
United States could teach us. 'Stupid' energy would use electricity and gas to
heat the air outside buildings rather than insulating the buildings. It would
encourage us to drive more and larger cars at high speeds so that we use more
fossil fuels, preferably with only one occupant in each car. Despite its high
economic costs, its failure to deal with radioactive waste and the need for very
high safety and security standards, 'stupid' energy would insist on the
promulgation of nuclear power, even in countries at very high risk of nuclear
weapons proliferation. Enough
about 'stupid' energy. We currently do some of those things, which makes the
current programme even more topical and even more useful. It is actually a
modest programme, with EUR 200 million allocated for four years, which is
frankly still inadequate. I hope that further funding will be made available
during the programme, in particular when new Member States join. The programme
has four objectives, all of which are indeed intelligent: the promotion of
renewable energy sources, of energy efficiency, of clean transport and of all
these three things in developing countries. All four objectives are important
and I congratulate the European Commission on its intention to establish
coordinating measures. I look forward to hearing the Commissioner's declaration,
which is a declaration that I made clear was essential if we were to find
agreement. Parliament's amendments to the Council of Ministers' common position
encompass the budget - we insisted on an increase to EUR 200 million with a
review clause - and numerous clarifications. I am pleased to say that 22 of
Parliament's amendments were accepted in the common position and others have
been accepted in subsequent negotiations. There is an unfortunate omission as
regards the need for a strategic agency in the field of energy. Parliament will
pursue that idea in other ways. The
Commission has done well to come forward with this programme. Its measures will
help with protection of the environment, security of supply and with our
industrial competitiveness. It will complement efforts by Member States and will
encourage the laggardly Member States to do more. I will not name them to spare
people's blushes. I am
particularly pleased that the COOPENER Programme, which is itself modest, will
serve as leverage for much better-funded programmes such as those foreseen in
Johannesburg. Over 2 billion people in the world have no access to electricity.
This programme will help. One
worrying aspect is the difficulty the Commission apparently has with the lead
times for its proposals. These proposals were published so late that it is not
going to be possible to commit money to projects until February 2004. I hope
that the Commissioner will undertake a review of the timescale for preparing
legislation to prevent problems of this sort, which I am sure are as
disappointing to her as they are to us. Nevertheless,
the Intelligent Energy for Europe Programme will be of very real value and I
look forward to its adoption following the Commissioner's declaration, and to a
vote tomorrow which I hope will be very well supported by a European Parliament
that will follow the programme with great interest.
12th
May 2003: Ministerial meeting of the European Space Agency Mr
President, if the speeches are becoming repetitive, that is a very good thing.
It shows the widespread support. We want a consolidated European space policy.
We do not want continuous, ad hoc structures. We need a permanent solution. This
must be made clear at the ESA ministerial meeting. The reasons are obvious.
There is considerable European added value in working together. There is an
existing acquis which must be built
upon. We must have independence within this part of the world in this very
important sector. It allows us to have links with third countries such as the
United States - why not - and also Russia and countries further afield such as
South Africa and some of the applicant countries. It allows us to retain our
scientists and our technologists. Otherwise we will lose them. It allows us to
recruit the new generation of scientists and technologists. We cannot do that
unless there are projects that capture the imagination of our talented young
people. It
allows us, of course, to have spin-offs in a variety of sectors which have
already been mentioned and which will enhance the SME sector. It allows us to be
much more efficient in carrying out our EU objectives and policies on climate
change, agriculture, security and development in the developing countries. We
are playing uphill on a very sloping playing field against the United States.
They use cross-subsidy to the tune of 31.8 billion of public money - and rising
fast - compared to our EUR 6 billion - and falling. They use public procurement,
without blushing, to encourage their space sector. They use R&D. They use a
monopoly on certain electronic equipment to keep us from exploiting the
high-tech space sector. We
have already heard about launchers and satellites. Clearly the problems of the
telecoms sector have been difficult for satellites in the European Union. But
there is no reason, with an up-turn, that we should not, with public procurement
and public funds, be launching far more satellites in the future for public,
citizen benefit. As far as Galileo is concerned, Mr President, you know more
than anyone else in this House what is needed. I am delighted that Mr Prodi is
prepared to be proactive. He will have the support of many people in this
Chamber. Finally,
let us not forget astronomy and space exploration. I would like to hear a bit
more about the European southern laboratory. Let
us have space policy in the Convention. It is an ideal area for the European
Union.
27th March 2003 - Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis Mr President, congratulations to Mr Busquin and Mr Gérard Caudron. Gérard has worked quickly but he has not been sloppy or careless. We have been able to put across important points despite working quickly. This is innovation. This is a new use of Article 169 which will lead to considerable leverage, with EUR 200 million from the EU plus EUR 200 million from Member States and we hope for at least that much from industry. In this area the market has failed, as it so often does, and there has been, until now, a certain lack of public leadership, with a particular bottleneck in the clinical trials aspect of finding new products. We have heard that it is the biggest killer, that 5 million people die a year, 95% of them in poor countries. Yesterday, we grieved publicly for the victims of the irresponsible and immoral war in Iraq by wearing black armbands. We should be wearing them every day for the victims of these killer diseases. There is, of course, a multi-pronged attack. This point has been made by other speakers. Other actions are needed but this particular action is research. It is for clinical trials which will lead to the development of new products, in particular a new vaccine for tuberculosis, much better diagnostic tools, and combined medicines for HIV/AIDS which are easier to take and have fewer side effects. That is what we want at the end. That will be the outcome of these clinical trials. We have made the point that they must be targeted. Despite the complexity of the problem let us keep in mind the whole time what we want at the end. We must strengthen the clinical research capacities in developing countries. One of the tragedies of our planet is the waste of human intelligence and creativity in countries which have been politically discriminatory or else riven by poverty. We must encourage that intelligence and creativity by having infrastructure, training and everything else. Everything must be anchored in the developing countries with an understanding that, should we find these things, should we find a better vaccine for tuberculosis, better drugs for HIV/AIDS and better diagnostic tests, they will be available to those that need them. It would be the greatest obscenity to do this work, discover the products and then find that those who need them cannot use them. I am very pleased that has been emphasised and I thank Gérard Caudron very much for his work as well as, of course, Commissioner Busquin.
26th March 2003 Outcome of the European Council (Brussels, 21-22 March, 2003) Mr President, I am glad that Commissioner Prodi pointed out the disparity between the financial costs of this war and those available to meet the needs of humanity. There is something surrealistic - and in fact disgusting - about squandering money on a fully-contrived war and then handing out lucrative contracts to favourite local firms to repair the damage caused by that very war. (Applause from the left) I will, however, move on now to the economic part of the Spring Summit, focusing upon two aspects: progress in innovation and enterprise, and environmental protection. Every Spring Summit seems to me like a non-stop re-run of the Delors White Paper. That is also somewhat surrealistic. As far as research and development is concerned, let me be positive. I am glad that Commissioner Prodi is going to look at the EIB because, frankly, that institution is inefficient and ineffective in aiding those firms which could be innovative and competitive if they just had that helping hand. Good for him. As far as environmental protection is concerned, let me highlight intelligent energy, for which I am the rapporteur in this Parliament. This is a programme that was presented many months late by the Commission - it should have started in January this year. That is not efficient, and it is most certainly not competitive and dynamic à la Lisbon Declaration. This programme, I am sad to say, has been cut by the Council. As rapporteur, I am currently weighing up whether to accept a reduced programme which will actually happen or whether to argue for what should happen. Let us be clear that we are not matching our words with deeds.
10th March - General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) Commissioner, since your appointment you have adopted a very good habit of consulting and informing the European Parliament, for which we are grateful. We are also grateful for your support for the changes to the Treaty necessary to give us the powers we need in the trade area. Just as you are responsive to us, we have to be responsive to those who elect us. You know as well as we do that there are genuine and widespread worries about GATS. You have mentioned some of them: transparency, the feeling that a lot of unsavoury things are being done secretly; threats to EU jobs, which have prompted, I suppose, the dockers' demonstration we saw today; threats to public services, with particularly acute dangers to developing countries; threats to the ability of Member States to regulate, and particular fears in the culture area, on which others will speak. At the same time, the European public is well aware - since 60% of them or more work in service industries - that there are possibilities for EU firms in widespread trade in services. So they face the dual interest which you have delineated. Developing countries have not rejected GATS completely. However, the fears about public services, regulation and extension and the fact that the developing countries do not have the capacity for the administration that an opening-up of service markets will require all mean that the implications of opening up trade in services need to be very fully assessed. I would put more emphasis on that than on anything else in our resolution. Before we go any further we want to know - not in a perfunctory exercise but in a detailed and comprehensive assessment - what this means.
12th February 2003: Spring Council debate Mr
President, I would like to concentrate on research and the creation of the
European research area, both through the framework programme and through
co-ordination of national policies. A 3% target for investment in research was
set in Barcelona, but it is beginning to look like my New Year's resolution to
eat less and take more exercise in that it has not been kept and really needs a
bit more effort! I attended an
interesting benchmarking conference in Greece on research and technology. Let me
tell you about some of the areas where people looked in detail at the
performance of different Member States. Regarding women in science for example,
countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy are turning out excellent women
scientists and engineers, but other countries are doing very badly. When it
comes to persuading young people to enter science and engineering, Nordic
countries are doing well, as they do in a lot of categories. Others are doing
poorly. This is a crisis across Europe. In
terms of linking research with regional policy, again Finland is doing well, and
Ireland exceptionally well but other countries are not. Representing Cambridge,
I am pleased that some prestigious Cambridge institutions are now looking to
South Yorkshire as a suitable location for research infrastructure. Some
countries do well in clustering. The more we do of this comparison and the more
we learn the lessons of the comparison, the more likely we are to keep our New
Year's resolution. I will try harder on mine if Member States try harder on
theirs! (Applause)
10th
February 2003: WTO and agriculture debate Mr
President, I am pleased indeed that Commissioners Lamy and Fischler will be
going to Tokyo for the mini-ministerial with an approved position. I agree with
you, Commissioner Lamy, that the agriculture negotiations will be very important
in determining whether or not the meetings in Cancun are a success. I am pleased
too that you have defined for us "modalities", it is a word strange to
the English language, but of course, once you come to rules and numbers you are
then beginning to be so clear that certain vested interests begin to take
fright, so these negotiations will be difficult.
The European Union certainly has a world responsibility in terms of
negotiations on agriculture. As Mr Cunha has just said, the volume of trade
alone would make us significant. However, we do not have sole responsibility,
and countries such as the United States should be reminded that they have a
responsibility too. I am sure in your discussions with Bob Zurlik you will
remind him of that. However, you said quite clearly that the European Union can
and will negotiate, so let us look at what that means. Naturally
we have the interest of European producers and consumers in higher food quality,
rural development, environment protection and animal welfare. Some of those
issues need clarification, and at the same time, the raison
d'être of the development round are the needs of agriculture in developing
countries where, proportionately, it is of far more importance than it is in the
European Union. It is the principal source of income and employment in
developing countries and a major tool in the fight against poverty and indeed in
the improvement of food security. So our aim is multi-faceted, we need a better
deal for agriculture in developing countries, but we
also need to strengthen targeted support for certain aspects of European
agriculture. We have a certain margin of manoeuvre within which to do it.
There is some feeling within the Socialist Group that the proposal is
somewhat lacking in ambition. We expect to be offering to the developing world a
bigger and an earlier reduction in all agricultural tariffs and in getting rid
of restrictions of imports from the developing world. We want more insistence on
the importance of the greenbox and more attention to special and differential
treatment. You will need to
consider whether the current CAP reform goes far enough. The Socialist Group
would probably think not. We will leave it to you to push the agenda forward as
quickly as you can.
10th February 2003: WTO and generic medicines debate Mr
President, this evening we will identify what are probably the two make-or-break
issues for the next WTO round in Cancun - TRIPS and public health and
agriculture. Developing countries' perception of our good faith, good will and
sincerity towards them will be tested by our attitude to these two issues. As we
know, binding agreement was reached in the form of the Doha Declaration,
paragraph 6 of which highlighted the difficult issue of WTO members with
insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector, who
could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing under
the TRIPS agreement. The Council
for TRIPS was asked to find an expeditious solution to this problem.
Commissioner, we welcome the efforts you have made and the backing you
have had to get this implemented. In
an innovative and welcome suggestion you enlist the aid of the World Health
Organisation. If the intention is not honoured, the new constraints would
violate the
spirit of the Doha Declaration and would
show bad faith. I am sure you are
right - and we have had discussions about this - to reject a moratorium on
disputes or, indeed, a derogation. Neither is an adequate solution.
The behaviour of the United States, not just on this issue but also - and
far more seriously in some ways - on the issue of Iraq, is becoming increasingly
difficult to understand. Indeed, the only possible explanation is its
politicians paying undue attention to the financial interests of pharmaceutical
companies who paid for their election. They
have come up with only a unilateral solution and a narrow list. This is
inadequate! Two deadlines have been
missed already, and there is a real risk of deadlock if the efforts which we
have channelled through you come to nothing. Concerns which have been raised,
for example on the diversion trade in generic medicines, are being tackled.
Hence the regulation by the Council of Ministers.
Let us welcome your proposal of 7 January. It is a multilateral solution
which enlists a reputable and widely trusted agency, the World Health
Organisation. As you said, the solution must be lasting, fair and legally
viable. The conflict should be
examined on the basis of the guideline that public health has primacy over
patents. We cannot overestimate the
importance of finding a solution to this issue. I wish you very good luck,
Commissioner.
6th November 2002: Nuclear proposals package Mr President, the Commissioner is working under the constraints of the undemocratic and anachronistic Euratom Treaty. Despite this, would you, Commissioner, accept the need for the European Parliament to give an opinion on the two directives and communication which you are presenting to us, particularly on whether or not the case for deep-level storage of highly radioactive waste has been proved? This is contrary to the views of the British Royal Society, which finds that the scientific case has not been made.
25th September 2002: Outcome of World Summit on Sustainable Development Mr
President, Commissioners you will be beginning to find our speeches repetitive.
Great: in a multi-national and cross-party body, that means our message will get
through. We all agree, for example, that energy is the largest contributor by
far to the emission of greenhouse gases. Some of us think that nuclear energy is
expensive, outdated, potentially dangerous and no solution at all to energy
problems. But we all agree that transport is the key energy problem: fossil
fuels must be replaced by alternatives, and very soon. How? We agree that
renewable energy and energy efficiency are key solutions. This was recognised in
Johannesburg, but unfortunately, only to a limited extent. However, we should
act quickly on this through the EU. Remember that the key role of energy in
poverty alleviation was recognised at Johannesburg, and that the new EU
programme, COOPENER, on renewable energy and energy efficiency in the developing
world, will help to access some of the funding which will be available, this
programme is important. There
is, incidentally, a very strong gender implication to the provision of energy,
because of the tasks of women throughout the developing world. The
failure to achieve targets for renewable energy – a failure for which the
United States, to their shame, are largely responsible – can be overcome with
goodwill and effort from the European Union. On the matter of implementation:
Carrying suitcases from summit to summit does nothing. It is what happens in
between the summits that matters, and I urge you, Commissioners, to use your
legislative powers and your monitoring ability to ensure that what was said at
Johannesburg, even if it is not enough, is carried through.
2nd July 2002 Implementation of framework programmes 2002-2006 (research) Mr
President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur who used her experience in the
fifth framework programme and her professional experience as a scientist to the
great benefit of all of us, particularly following her accident. I
should also like to thank Mr Busquin, an excellent Commissioner, who has been
very skilful along with his staff in ensuring that we could get a result early
in the process. Of course we all wish to thank Mr Marimón for his patience and
good humour. I also thank the scientific community, which was not slow in giving
us advice and in pointing out that its needs were for simplicity, faster
administration and financial care. These
new instruments are exciting, but we have to be sure that many people are not
prevented from taking part in the programmes because of their lack of
familiarity. Liability looked as though it would be a big problem but,
fortunately, it was overcome. I
would point out the importance to Parliament of Amendment No 29 and its
counterpart in the Euratom programme, Amendment No 38, which add criteria which
can and should be taken into account, including activities to increase the role
of women in research and to look at synergies with education. Ease of access
means that dissemination should be fairly easy, but Parliament considers
dissemination to be an important stage in this process. You can be sure that we
shall be following up very carefully the sixth framework programme, visiting
projects, speaking to scientists and asking for evaluations. With
the adoption tomorrow of Mrs Quisthoudt-Rowohl's report, the final piece of the
puzzle will be in place. Thanks to Mr Caudron and the rapporteurs on the
specific programmes, we have worked efficiently and we now have plenty of time
for our scientists to prepare, knowing our aim is to make the sixth framework
programme efficient, well managed, easy to take part in and above reproach from
the financial point of view. Thank you again to all concerned.
11th June 2002: Scientific funding in the European Parliament Mr President, I should like to congratulate the five rapporteurs and the Commission, who have steadfastly showed their willingness to listen to the European Parliament, both in the Caudron report and since. I will speak briefly about each of the reports. First of all, I welcome Mr van Velzen's emphasis on life sciences other than genomics and his advocacy of translational research, which means rapid transposition into clinical applications. This is something which will appeal to the public. I also welcome our amendment, which adds nanosciences to nanotechnology. The recent excellent STOA report on nanotechnologies makes it clear that we are still at the stage of nanoscience. That must be emphasised. As far as aeronautics is concerned, I am glad that there will be some attention to the health of passengers. I support our amendment on space science. Indeed I would like more attention to the big science projects in the European research area outside the framework programme. Of course I support Parliament's new emphasis on health and safety at work. I support Mrs Zorba's conclusions. Like her, I was delighted with the increase in funding for science and society. However, I agree with her that some funding should come from the priority thematic areas for the science and society implications. Multidisciplinary research, yes; a European higher education area, with the synergies that implies for the European research area. We should be training people in research management and ethics. Mr Piétrasanta has made an excellent analysis of the new tasks of the JRC as a technical reference body and a support mechanism for decision-making. I greatly welcome his emphasis on the need for monitoring and the need for the European Parliament to be involved in such monitoring - not just in the JRC. As far as Mr Alyssandrakis' report is concerned, I would welcome a breakthrough in fusion research, not least because it is far less dangerous than nuclear fission and we need to have an alternative to that form of energy. I am fairly sceptical about whether or not ITER will proceed within this framework programme, but we will see. Every citizen wants action on radioactive waste. The Royal Society in the UK emphasised that recently. It has not been solved yet. I am a great advocate of transmutation and partitioning and welcome any support that can be given to those technologies. I am not, however, a supporter of spending EU money on research into new reactors. This is something that should be funded by the nuclear industry itself. We are not in the business of giving industrial aid to that particular sector. That is not what the public is calling for. As far as Mr Schwaiger is concerned, he is absolutely right to say that we must have, before long, some sort of aquis communautaire in the sector of nuclear safety. So congratulations to everyone for their good work and cooperation and good luck to all our scientists.
14th May 2002: European Research Area (2002-2006) Mr
President, I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to
the rapporteur, to the Spanish presidency and to Commissioner Busquin who has
been exemplary in his patience, understanding and respect for Parliament's
opinions. Clever
people all over Europe are waiting to hear what we decide this week, because
next year they will be able to use their brains on our behalf. We will give them
the money to do work which will help our economy and our society. There is a
strong correlation between research effort and economic success, and the
European Union at least is giving an example and showing that it understands
that connection. We
have been able to reach a very wide consensus in Parliament across political and
national boundaries on the Sixth Framework Programme. We are coming up with a
programme which highlights key areas for research but at the same time expresses
the wishes of the citizens of Europe for scourges like cancer and other
illnesses and for environmental dangers to be combated with intelligence. This
is one part of the European research area. Member States must do the rest. It is
their responsibility. The European Union is doing its part. Thank you to those
who have enabled more money to be spent on the important area of science and
society which includes a detailed examination of ethics. We in the PSE Group
will not support amendments on ethics, but we appreciate the declaration which
has been brought forward. At
the end of a long process, may I thank once again our excellent rapporteur who
has worked in a remarkable way, our shadows and everyone else involved. Clever
people of Europe, the money is on its way! (Applause)
14th May 2002: Question Time (Commission) Since you, Commissioner, will evidently be using the European Group on Ethics as an instrument for conducting the framework programme on research, can you let us know to what extent you will inform Parliament about the advice given to you by that group, about the composition of the group and indeed the discussions that you have with the group and with its Chair – when that person arrives?
9th April 2002: 2000 dischargesMadam President, our committee covers 120 budget lines, some very large indeed, including the research programmes Tacis, Phare and Meda. The implementation of those lines has been heavily criticised in the past. My first point is about the expenditure in 2000 of the Synergy programme, which is a programme to further international cooperation in the energy sector, and one strongly supported by the European Parliament. I am sure you can imagine, Commissioner, our astonishment and dismay when the Commission abandoned this programme in the year 2000, cancelled a call for tenders already published, causing huge inconvenience, and proceeded to spend no money at all throughout the year 2000. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that this is unacceptable behaviour and that the relevant Commissioner is well aware of our views. I am pleased to say that remedial action has been taken and we look forward to an enhanced programme in this very important sector. I turn now to the Tacis programme on nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union. This has regularly been severely - and rightly - criticised in the past. It is work which is carried out in difficult conditions, in an area where slackness and inefficiency in the implementation of budgets was traditional. We note with pleasure a marked improvement and look forward to reassurance about the safety of nuclear installations in the former Soviet Union. I would like to thank colleagues from the Committee on Budgetary Control for their cooperation in helping us to undertake the very important work of scrutiny on which our committee, could spend all its time on if we wished to.
13th March 2002: Transatlantic relations including steel import tariffs (continuation)Mr President, behaviour which is apparently irrational usually has an explanation. President Bush's decision to impose steel tariffs is irrational. The tariffs are a flagrant breach of world trade rules. There has been no sudden calamitous increase in imports. US steel has been uncompetitive and in deep trouble over a long period; it has not become so suddenly. Tariffs will not solve the US steel problem, but they will badly harm America's allies. They will destroy American jobs in other sectors and they will damage world trade relations. Knowing all this, why would President Bush take this irrational decision? We know why. He wants to buy votes in steel - producing areas come November and is so desperate to do so that he will gladly sacrifice his international credibility - and we in the EU and others elsewhere in the world are meant to pay the price! Talk about collateral damage! Of course, this cannot be tolerated. We do not subsidise steel, we do not dump steel. We went through terrible times to make our steel competitive. Our market is open. There is no possible justification for this deliberate attack on the livelihood of European steel workers. Remember, this is the President who thinks he can provide world leadership. Global leader in military power he may be, but he is a global dunce in citizenship and respect for others. Commission: take him on. You have all of us behind you and you have the tools to ensure that you can act both legally and effectively. Go for it!
12th March 2002: EnergyMr President, as usual, very sincerely meant congratulations to the three rapporteurs involved in this package. Liberalisation of gas and electricity is certainly part of the Lisbon Process, but this does not mean a free-for-all in the electricity and gas markets. Our concern must be for those we represent: customers both commercial and - the majority of us - domestic. We want the lowest prices possible for them in line with choice, and for choice you need information, including labelling about the source of electricity. You need reliability and no discrimination; you need help, particularly at domestic level, for energy efficiency measures; and you need strong emphasis on public service obligations. And I would like to emphasise that research and development should be a public service obligation, because in a free market research is one of the areas that is most at risk. We have amendments on subjects such as renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and combined heat and power. This is relevant. We must have joined-up thinking, and there must be references in this directive to those areas which may be covered by other directives but which must also be mentioned here. We want joined-up thinking, and we expect confirmation from the Commission that those measures, as important as these directives, will be part of the programme in the immediate future. We hope, therefore, for some limited success at Barcelona to take forward in a responsible way not a free-for-all, but a controlled competitive market.
27th February 2002: Barcelona European Council I
want to address three points. Firstly, the liberalisation of the energy market,
secondly the European research area and the flanking measures which need to
accompany the sixth framework programme, and thirdly, entrepreneurship. On
entrepreneurship, is it not about time that we heard some of the results from
the many benchmarking exercises which have been undertaken? Is it not time that
we named and shamed those Member States who are not taking the actions necessary
to improve entrepreneurship and competitiveness? The European Parliament's
Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted on the
liberalisation directives for gas and electricity and we have reached the
conclusion that if liberalisation takes place without paying attention to the
environmental, consumer and social consequences, you are embarking on a
dangerous journey. We would ask, for example, that energy efficiency be used as an indicator in the Lisbon and Barcelona processes. If a Member State is so inept that it does not use energy intelligently, it will never be competitive. It is one of the best indicators of the will of that country to do well in today's world, so we ask for indicators there. And please, tell us what your many benchmarking exercises have shown
4th February 2002: Energy performance of buildingsMr President, I should like to start by congratulating Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca for his usual, very cooperative and consensual approach. I know that Mrs Zrihen, our socialist shadow, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening, appreciated the way in which he worked. This directive, part of a package of measures aimed at making our use of energy more intelligent, should disseminate the existing good practice of some Member States right across the EU, and will also be very important in improving the situation in applicant countries where energy-efficient buildings could do much to help their economies as well as protecting the environment. We as socialists are very
supportive of the amendments put forward by Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca and others.
The rapid growth of air conditioning needs to be taken into account more, the
possibilities open to Member States in the form of inducements should be
clarified, and many of the definitions need to be tightened.
16th January 2002: Energy liberalisation (in presence of Jose Maria Aznar) Mr President, Prime Minister, thank you for your presentation of the Spanish Presidency's priorities. I will comment on just one of them, namely your determination to complete the single market in the gas and electricity sectors. We have misgivings about your approach. You want the EU to be guided by five major principles: openness, liberalisation, competition, transparency and interconnection. These are fundamental to an open market. Energy, however, is not like other goods or services. It has other facets: basic social need and environmental impact. A rushed and ill-considered liberalisation would be highly dangerous. Your own country, like California, has recently suffered major power cuts following liberalisation. Liberalisation leads to a dash for gas, forcing us to import gas from some very fragile regimes. We need to ensure that indigenous energy sources can play a major role in energy supply. Renewable energies in particular need legal protection and promotion. The greatest contribution to security of supply is intelligent use of energy, one of the regulatory requirements of wise liberalisation. Please ensure that energy efficiency becomes a key national indicator at Barcelona. Uneven opening of the market between countries brings huge resentment. We strongly support your efforts to put pressure on certain governments, which keep their markets closed while they take advantage of open markets elsewhere. I look forward to your assurance that liberalisation of energy will take place in a very strictly regulated framework which protects the environment and takes heed of social consequences, some of which are very serious. Unlike Mr Evans, we think that is important.
11th December 2001: The link between environment and tradeMr President, Commissioner, I want to speak on an issue which Parliament identified before Qatar as vital, indeed we called it 'make or break' as did the Commissioner - that is the link between environment and trade. In Qatar, we saw a breakthrough. For the first time, and against fierce and widespread opposition, we will have negotiations on some key environmental issues. Of course, much more remains to be done, but a process has been started and a taboo broken. The key to further progress must be to demonstrate, above all, to developing countries, that their fears of green protectionism on our side are groundless. Qatar, frankly, did not produce the progress that we in the PSE Group wanted, and asked for beforehand on labour rights, on democracy and transparency in WTO decision-making. But it did leave the way open to progress on both. We know there was intense pressure from many countries, for a declaration that labour rights were a matter for the ILO alone. That pressure was resisted quite rightly and the principle of WTO cooperation with the ILO restated. The EU must now push hard to translate this principle into practice, seeing the opportunity given by the ILO's launch of a commission on the social aspects of globalisation in which the WTO and other international organisations will be participating. The ministerial meeting also agreed to negotiations on reform of the dispute settlement procedure with an open agenda covering whatever proposals WTO members choose to table. The EU must take this opportunity for openness and transparency. Commissioner, we would really like to know what your ideas are for reform and we shall not be slow in letting you know what our ideas are either. We would like to put on record today our recognition of the key role played by you, Commissioner Lamy, in the success of the meeting. You had a very difficult role and you displayed skill and tenacity. I emphasise, in particular, your insistence that you need the political support of this House in order to pursue the round in the way it was launched. We shall be making our support in a resolution to be voted tomorrow. Many people went to Qatar hoping for a fiasco, hoping for a re-run of Seattle, hoping for something to denounce, in a mood of populism. They are disappointed in that hope and they need to be honest with themselves and to respect the views of developing countries not to indulge in paternalism as some of our colleagues have unfortunately done.
14th November 2001: European Research Area (Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006)Mr President, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Caudron, and Commissioner Busquin, who have both helped us to work efficiently, as have the shadow rapporteurs. The Sixth Framework Programme is the first implementation of the European Research Area, which itself is a consequence of the Lisbon Summit and its wish for us to have a successful knowledge-based economy, because of the strong correlation between research and development and economic success - inadequate in most EU countries outside Scandinavia, I should say. We welcome the emphasis on looking for European added value, not scattering the limited funds over the whole range of research carried out. So I am glad that we are now targeting cutting-edge research, particularly in areas like nano-technology, which will be very significant in the future. There are, however, some gaps in the proposals which we wish to see filled. They include, of course, health, other than strictly post-genomic research, non-nuclear energy and land and water transport. I come to international activities, because the research framework programme must look outside the EU as well. It is essential that there is both earmarked money for international cooperative research - we suggest EUR 400m - and mainstreaming across all the research, particularly on HIV/AIDS and malaria and tuberculosis. We must involve the countries that suffer from those scourges in the research. The sums allocated in the Commissioner's proposal for science and society were inadequate. We propose to double the spending on science and society. We do not think that having one specific programme with one management will lead to transparency and adequate monitoring. I therefore hope that our suggestion will ensure that we are able to have both openness and good management of each individual part of the programmes. Although we welcome networks of excellence and integrated projects, we must maintain more familiar mechanisms at the early stages. We must at all costs avoid the creation of scientific cartels. I am pleased with the new mission of the JRC. I served on Mr Davignon's panel and it is certainly consistent with the panel's views. As far as the Euratom section of the Sixth Framework Programme is concerned, I have very grave doubts as to whether the ITER project will be implemented and my personal view - this is not the view of the rapporteur - is that extra funding is not therefore needed. It will be available in any case. The framework programmes are one of the big success stories of the European Union. Let us build on their past success.
October 2001: Preparations for the Fourth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade OrganisationMr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office, like others, I wear a badge which symbolises trade with justice. Open trade - yes, but only with rules. Our national and European interests, yes of course, but also the interests of the developing world - your approach, Commissioner, and ours. I am going to concentrate on two frankly difficult areas - TRIPS and the environmental aspects of trade which you have already mentioned. Firstly, TRIPS : what we now have in the agreement is not clear enough or good enough. Intellectual property rights are important in world trade, but we thought that the 25.5 million HIV positive people in sub-Saharan Africa could have access to cheap drugs under TRIPS. Let us ensure that this is made more explicit after Doha. Ironically, the United States, the world's most fierce defender of intellectual property rights is now faced with the dilemma of needing huge supplies of antibiotics to combat anthrax. Attitudes may change with new circumstances - in any case, they have to. Secondly, environmental standards. The EU faces charges of protectionism. Commissioner, you know that this is not the case, that we are ready to help developing countries in any way necessary as we are helping applicant countries, that we have science on our side and that we will not abandon our hard-won progress - why should we? Multilateral environment agreements cannot be discarded in the name of free trade and the precautionary principle must be explicitly included in WTO rules. This is a deal-breaker for us. We in the EU know more than any other part of the world how untrammelled free trade can be controlled through multilateral rule-making to the benefit of our citizens. Our achievements in the EU are relevant elsewhere, and we should defend them - your task Commissioner. I know you will be tough on our behalf. I hope you will be tough too on core labour standards. Seattle did not work - Doha can if it is fair and if there is a balance of trade and justice. Good luck Commissioner.
October 2001: Consequences of recent events for the safety of air transport and industrial installations including nuclear power plantsPresident, the basic premise of terrorism is that the unexpected, the unconsidered, the unbelievable will terrify the population into accepting political claims, whether they are rational or not. Thank you, Commissioner, for your statement. I welcome the cooperation you have outlined and the special attention which will be given to nuclear installations. I hope that Member States will cooperate with the Commission in this work. Our reaction must be to do all that we can to prevent the sort of widespread slaughter, injury and chaos we saw in the United States. Air travel, nuclear power stations, chemical works and oil depots, are all obvious targets for terrorists. They are designed, built and protected accordingly at very considerable cost to the public. The French Government now protects the reprocessing centre at La Hague with fighter planes and missiles. No doubt the United Kingdom does likewise in Sellafield. We cannot inhabit the weird minds of terrorists, but we can pay the high cost of protection. We can work together and we can be very careful when we consider building, or indeed retaining, a potential target. Things will not be the same after 11 September, as many others have said. No one had conceived of using a fully loaded, large passenger plane as a weapon. We have to factor that into our calculations. Please keep reporting to Parliament. We want the citizens of Europe to know that everything possible has been done to keep them safe.
October 2001: Energy efficiency labelling for office equipment Madam President, I am very pleased to present my recommendation for second reading on the Energy Star agreement. As you will know, in a rather complex procedure, Parliament has already been consulted on the agreement itself. This is now the codecision procedure on the regulation that implements that agreement. I wish to thank the European Commission, the Council and my colleagues, in particular the shadow rapporteurs, for their help in steering through this rather complex procedure. I would like to thank in particular the Swedish presidency, which went out of its way to be helpful. The common position of the Council takes on board most of the points made by Parliament at first reading. We shall have an earlier review than was expected; we shall have an update on new technological advances in this area of energy efficiency; we shall have a report to Parliament. Furthermore, the United States' authorities are absolutely clear that Parliament is involved in discussions on the Energy Star programme from the Commission's point of view. This has been done through a side letter added to the agreement, at Parliament's request, which meets our wishes for them to know how we operate in the European Union. This clearly is not the only measure which is to be taken in the area of energy efficiency. I understand there is an update to the common position because of the new Eco-Label award scheme. I am prepared, as rapporteur, to accept that slight modification which has been made necessary. Even though I am pleased that it looks as though this agreement is coming into force, I do not want to exaggerate its importance. It is a useful tool, but it is a relatively modest proposal; it is a voluntary scheme based on a United States model. I know many colleagues agree with me that in future we should work as a European Union and have European Community schemes rather than attempting to latch on to schemes developed elsewhere, in the United States for example. Nevertheless, although it is relatively modest, it is welcome. Computer equipment is sold worldwide and the educative, awareness-raising aspects of seeing the Energy Star logo on computers is worthwhile. We know that one of the tasks in increasing energy efficiency is to improve public awareness. It is a small part of what is needed. Everyone in this Chamber knows that energy efficiency is the most important component of energy policy. It is the fifth fuel - coal, gas, renewables, nuclear - the fifth fuel, with a 30% potential, is energy efficiency. If someone from another planet saw us acting as if we had known that, they would think we were stupid. We are not stupid, we are intelligent and that is why intelligent energy - a phrase with which I hope everyone is becoming familiar - and certainly Mr Wijkman, Mr Turmes, Mrs van der Laan and I are doing our best to make it a very familiar phrase - and energy-intelligent Europe depend on energy efficiency. We look to the Commissioner to bring in a package of measures well beyond Energy Star. They are demand-side management and two important directives: one on household appliances and one on office equipment - not made in the USA. I hope that during this autumn, under the Belgian presidency, we will see both of those draft directives adopted. We have been very cooperative on the Energy Star programme. There is only one amendment, which could be withdrawn. If the Commissioner is able to give us tonight an appropriate assurance and accept the spirit of that amendment, which asks her to take further action on the withdrawal of inefficient equipment, it is quite possible that we can approve the common position unamended.
July 2001: Electricity from renewable energy sourcesMr President, I extend my heartiest congratulations to Mrs Rothe for her exemplary work with colleagues in Parliament as well as with the Council and the Commission. She and Mrs Ayuso González have both expressed certain disappointment at the result, but I would say to Mrs Rothe that she should feel relief that what looked possible at one time has not come about. She has made considerable progress. It is eminently sensible to promote renewable energy because it enables us to fulfil our environmental objectives, creates jobs and ensures security of supply. The items enumerated by Mrs Rothe are targets, not yet mandatory. But I am pleased that we have the fall-back position should Member States fail in their duty. There is a definition which excludes the use of municipal waste, gives permission for successful support mechanisms to continue and thereby boosts investor confidence. My own country, the United Kingdom - the windiest country in Europe - has some lessons to learn from work in other countries. We need other measures as well as this directive. I know the Commissioner would agree on the need for a framework for energy support. We need research and development in the sixth Framework Programme. We need to look at the single market to ensure that it does not contradict the aims of this directive and we need to make sure that renewables take their full place when we consider the security of supply Green Paper. Congratulations again to Mrs Rothe. I very much look forward to a positive result tomorrow.
14 March 2001: Preparatory work for the Stockholm European Council (23/24 March 2001) Mr President, if we genuinely want a knowledge-based economy there are preconditions: you need a critical mass of numerate and scientifically trained citizenry in the workplace, expenditure of at least 3% of GDP on research and development, research infrastructure and networks of expertise and a rapid system of dissemination and exploitation. These preconditions are generally not met in the EU, despite the Lisbon Declaration. First, we are very short of engineers and scientists: retraining in science is an essential part of life-long learning. Secondly, only two Member States - Sweden, luckily, and Finland - spend more than 3% of GDP on research and they have the industrial competitiveness which accompanies that expenditure. Foresight and dissemination will, of course, be helped by the forthcoming Sixth Framework Programme and even more by the creation of the European research area, with its networking of centres of excellence. Without Member State commitment at Stockholm, the knowledge-based economy simply will not happen. So I say to Member States: "Over to you at Stockholm. If you want it to happen, put your money where your mouth is".
13 March 2001: Energy efficiency Mr President, congratulations to the rapporteur, who has achieved a quite remarkable level of consensus right across this House. That consensus is leading to the joint initiative he mentioned, which we shall be announcing tomorrow. This is unusually good working together. Thank you, too, to the Commissioner, who works within the limits of a very inadequate Treaty. There is no energy chapter in the Treaty. This is a big gap and we must continue to put pressure on Member States if we want a coherent policy. That is what disappoints me about this action plan. It does not seem to be part of a coherent energy policy with short-term, medium-term and long-term strategies. It is a piecemeal approach in which the emphasis varies according to the publication. The case for energy efficiency is clear and unanswerable. It meets all three requisites of an energy policy: environmental impact, security of supply and competitiveness. All are helped by energy efficiency. So if this is so self-evident, the obvious question is why do we need an action plan? Why is this not happening automatically? We know what the barriers are to accepting such a common sense solution. Ignorance of the facts, particularly at household and small firm level. Lack of incentive - energy in the European Union is artificially cheap because of the subsidies for the conventional forms of energy, which are often denied but certainly there, and the failure to take on board the external costs. In many Member States, there is no requirement to even look at demand site management. Commissioner, what has happened to the rational planning directive? Please bring it forward again. It has not finished its journey through the legislative process. Transport is, of course, a particularly difficult area and action is needed. This action plan of the Commission's is unambitious. A 1% per annum improvement would be very easy to achieve. We need at least 2.5%; that is attainable. We want to give serious consideration to the setting up of an energy programme agency with the task of producing the coherent energy strategy I mentioned. We can look at energy appliances. However, I am dubious about voluntary agreements. The Sixth Framework Programme gives us an opportunity to look at research and I hope that tomorrow, Commissioner, you will join with us in looking forward to a more intelligent use of energy in the European Union.
15 February 2001: Research guidelines 2002 - 2006 Mr President, as Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel has said, research has consistently been identified as the key to improving economic growth, creating new jobs, a cleaner environment and better health. How utterly astonishing, then, that every country in the world and every Member State of the European Union wastes half of its most valuable resource, that is, the brain power of its citizens. It wastes that brain power because it fails to engage women in the task of science adequately. Women are not encouraged at school level, they face discrimination in their careers, and this is something which we have to tackle in the European research area. I congratulate Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, the rapporteur, and Commissioner Busquin, both of whom have realised the importance of this gap. I am particularly pleased that Commissioner Busquin has upgraded the work of his directorate-general in this matter to the status of a unit, that he is ensuring that statistics are being kept, and that networks which help and encourage women scientists are being supported by the European Union. This must be a key part of the European research area. We need, as the phrase goes, research by women, for women - so that the gender implications of the research we undertake are examined - and about women. It is important that the socio-economic aspects of the research programme concentrate on gender matters. Why is it that almost every country in the world wastes the brains of half its population by not encouraging them? I thank Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel for her support of the Committee on Women's Rights' opinion and look forward to the gender perspective being an important aspect of the European research area.
13 February 2001: Commission work programme for 2001/Nice Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, we agree that after Lisbon we need a knowledge-based economy. I am glad that Mr Prodi emphasised the overriding importance of sustainable development, which has implications well beyond the natural environment. We welcome the acceleration of the energy market, though there is a risk of that aim clashing with the aim of sustainable development. I hope you will pursue rigorously a policy of encouraging renewable energy sources and rational use of energy. As far as trade is concerned, we agree that a new WTO round is desirable, again subject to the constraints of sustainable development. I wish to convey to Mr Prodi our very great disappointment at the lack of involvement by the European Parliament in trade matters, which could have been rectified at Nice, but which was not. I strongly urge you to work on an interinstitutional agreement which involves the European Parliament in trade matters. We believe in reform and democratisation of the WTO. We believe the 'everything but arms' move is a good step, although some of us regret the delayed timetable which sends a message of less than complete commitment to the least developed countries in the world. As far as innovation and research are concerned, we look forward to a detailed Sixth Framework Programme. If you present us with very vague proposals, that will certainly delay implementation and lead to concern and disappointment throughout the EU. The European research area is of course important. We look forward to wide publicity for the benchmarking exercises, particularly in the areas of enterprise and innovation.
31 January 2001: Energy efficiency labelling Mr President, this report concerns the proposed adoption by the European Union of the United States' energy star programme as it applies to office and communication technology equipment. This, colleagues, is not the sexiest title on this week' s agenda, perhaps, but it is directly linked to the future of our planet and to the possibility of even more devastating weather events, mass movements of people and crop failure. Our irresponsible and profligate use of energy, with its consequential emissions of C02 and other environmental hazards must stop. Ironically enough, it is in the United States, where the energy star scheme originated, that we have recently seen the absurd spectacle of power cuts in California, largely because of the incredible increase in the use of computers and other office equipment with the accompanying need for air-conditioning within a framework of quite bizarre and unwise deregulation. Things would have been even worse without the energy star programme. This scheme, which is voluntary, was introduced in 1992 and is now very widespread. It has been officially adopted in Australia and Japan for example. Members may in fact have seen the energy star logo on computers bought in the EU, although this means nothing yet since the technology has to be specially activated, which is done only in the United States. This evening we are discussing the draft regulation which will implement the US/EU agreement on which we shall vote in the next session. It is a voluntary scheme and it is hoped that between now and 2015 savings of 10 terawatt hours and 5 million tonnes of C02 emissions will be achieved in the EU through this scheme. I now enter the world of science fiction and explain that to be energy-efficient, computers must go to sleep, but they must wake up instantly when they are required to do so. When they are asleep their electricity consumption is cut on average from 100 watts to 5 watts. Given the number of computers in homes, schools, workplaces, etc., you can see how the savings mount up from the good sleeping habits of those machines. Until now, the European Union has produced its own energy efficient standards, often mandatory and the European Parliament has taken seriously its responsibility as a co-legislator to see that such standards are sufficiently stringent. That is why there would be very serious reservations from Parliament about adopting this US energy star scheme if that were to be our only measure and especially if there were no provisions in the agreement for regular review of the results, with the objective, of course, of always being at the leading edge of the relevant technologies. Luckily that is not the case however, and the Commission is to be given powers to negotiate improvements in the technical specifications. And it has been made quite clear to the US authorities in a side letter to the agreement that the European Parliament, which would have been a co-legislator with the Council for similar measures at European level, will be consulted by the Commission on matters concerning technical specifications. In the amendments to my report, we make it clear that further measures are certainly needed, including the glaringly obvious one of switching the machines off sometimes and withdrawing particularly inefficient machines from the market, either voluntarily or, if necessary, with legislation. I am quite sure that the Council will see the wisdom of these amendments and of the regular and earlier monitoring of the energy star scheme as one, but only one, component of our energy efficient action plan. We believe the current legal base is the correct one and we join the Commission in their suggestions. As rapporteur, I would like to thank the Commission for their cooperation and help and of course thank my colleagues, especially Mrs Müller, who drafted a very useful opinion from the Environment Committee. We all hope that the energy star scheme is a success and we look forward to watching computers throughout Europe going to sleep at the correct time.
15 November 2000: Promotion of electricity from renewable energy sourcesMr President, I congratulate Mrs Rothe. Renewable energy is by far the largest source of energy currently in use in the world. How else do we see where we are going during the day? More people use firewood than any other fuel. But tonight we are talking of extending the use of renewable energy. I am going to repeat three of our demands. Clarity is essential as we put forward our point of view to the Council. We want: binding targets, not indicative cut targets; a rational definition of renewable energy - energy from waste, which is to be incinerated anyway, is a good idea. But mixed household waste; old paint brushes, polystyrene packaging and discarded plastic toys are not renewable energy. Another directive is needed for energy from waste, as Mrs Rothe suggests. Thirdly, we want a reasonable and therefore a longer period of certainly in which renewable energy can continue to receive compensation for the external costs to society which its use avoids. Let me finish with one very startling fact. The United Kingdom could generate four times its power requirements from offshore wind alone - four times its power requirements! Colleagues, this directive makes sense. Commissioner, thank you for your efforts. I hope you will support ours.
20 September 2000: Measures to be taken following the fuel crisis and the rise in oil prices Mr President, we have been sleepwalking for decades. British Conservatives still are but it is time to wake up. We have two choices. One is a bad choice and that is to adopt a short-term fix and cut taxes, abdicate our government responsibilities. We cannot avoid the other choice and the real question which is: How do we use a finite resource when demand is increasing and we have environmental promises? The rational choice is to stop the profligate use of petrol and diesel and to change the behaviour of the public and of those involved in transport. Let us lower and enforce speed limits. We must lower our dependency on imported petroleum products. We must adopt alternative fuels – biodiesel, fuel cells, gas and electric cars. Let us realign the Fifth Frame Work Programme in its mid-term towards much more research into and development of those alternatives. Let us put more money in the budget, change the decision on programmes like SAVE and Altener. We do not need a new budget heading. These heading exist. Let us put more money in them. Let us negotiate – but as the European Union – because stability is in the interests not only of oil – importing countries but also of oil – exporting countries. Good luck, Commissioner, when you go to Luxembourg.
13 June 2000: Historical liabilities from JRC nuclear activitiesMadam President, I extend my thanks to Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca for the way in which he undertook his role as rapporteur and the way in which he involved those of us who were shadows on behalf of our groups. It was an exemplary way of setting about proceeding on what is a very difficult issue. Of course with hindsight this is something which should have been considered long ago. However, the European Commission and the Joint Research Centre have listened to the comments made by the European Parliament about this matter of concern. I accept that they are trying their very best to put forward a solution which enables them - who know as well as anyone else the seriousness of the situation - to tackle this problem. The methodology, however, is quite inadequate and can only be very temporary. We have this historical liability but, colleagues, this is not something that can possibly be funded from current research. This is not current research. We would be stealing money from research programmes which are badly needed and a top priority for the European Union if we financed the decommissioning from that budget That would be a completely incorrect use of research funds. These installations are the property and liability of the whole of the European Community, not uniquely of the research programmes. Conclusion 9 spells that out most clearly, and I fully support it. The traditional budgetary procedure is inadequate and inappropriate for the reasons that have been stated by colleagues. Not least, it is far too uncertain for a very important task like this. The trialogue is urgently needed. I support Amendment No 20 which says that the present situation, the present conclusion, is adequate for this year only. That means that we must have a trialogue meeting called within days after the passing of Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca's report. We must ask the chair of our committee, the Commission and the Council to get together before the summer so that a solution can be found for next year's budget. This work must be done in the safest possible conditions. We cannot have any corners cut in an area where it would actually be dangerous to do so. It must be done properly and properly financed; no cutting down on the amount of cooling time. Certainly not! We face a time-bomb in the Joint Research Centre: the imminent loss of very many skilled people who have the knowledge from their time at the Joint Research Centre. Those people are getting older and will retire. We have to have emergency measures to ensure that people with the appropriate skills are brought into the workforce at the Joint Research Centre. Of course we must look at the historical liabilities, but I urge colleagues to support Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca's report.
17 May 2000: Broad outlines of economic policies Mr President, I congratulate Mr Katiforis and Commissioner Solbes, both of whom have displayed a broader than usual understanding of what is necessary for a successful economy. We must take advantage of the fact that we are in the European Union to do things collectively. I wish to concentrate on research and development. I regret that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy did not draw up an opinion on Mr Katiforis's report - it should have done. Compared to the US and Japan, we are woefully lacking in a proper research strategy in almost all Member States except Finland, Sweden and the Republic of Ireland - countries shown in the Commission paper to have had unusual success. We need scientists in order to have research and development. Let us stop young people choosing to do other things. Let us encourage women. Let us ensure that competence in widely-used languages is increased. Above all, let us look at the salaries paid to scientists and technologists. That is what makes them choose other careers. Of course we need infrastructure in science facilities and communications. We need a strategy. Jacques Delors spelt it out in his White Paper, so we do not need to reinvent his thoughts. However, the big difference between us and the successful economies of the world - the US in particular - is that they spend far more money on investment in science, and it pays off. Commissioner Busquin's communication on the European research area is very good. However, what is important is the next stage: transferring that knowledge into goods and products and processes which can be sold. Let us be innovative in the European Union. Let us start by bringing the innovation unit back from Luxembourg to Brussels, where it can use its skills working with other departments of the Commission. That would be a not very revolutionary but a sensible thing to do.
17 May 2000: European research area Mr President, I wish to thank Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel for her usual very good report. I thank the Commissioner, whose timing is very good and so is his idea of launching this debate. There is indeed a growing feeling of unease at the lack of coordination in European science and research. The response has been positive, as the Commissioner knows from his contacts throughout Europe, including a recent visit to Cambridge. We are looking forward to seeing his analysis of the results of the consultation. There is a growing awareness in Europe of the dimensions of the threat from the very well-resourced, very well-targeted United States of America. Frankly, the EU is not punching its weight in research, although some Member States are very good. I would name Finland, Sweden and countries like the Republic of Ireland, which have made good progress. Apart from industrial competitiveness of course, as Mr Desama says, we have serious environmental and social problems which need research to put them right. A target of 3% of GDP on research is realistic and essential, as is the recruitment of far more scientists, including women. Please do not underestimate the potential of the Joint Research Centre, which is itself a scientific centre for policy - a reference centre for policy - and is ideally suited to the role of networking the centres of excellence. It is itself a centre of excellence in many areas. I strongly support paragraphs 16 and 17, which call for informing the European public about scientific achievements and looking at ethical questions. We look forward to regular reports from the Commissioner about the implementation and realisation of this very exciting and essential project.
16 May 2000: British Nuclear Fuels at Sellafield Mr President, the vast majority of United Kingdom citizens or indeed EU citizens were deeply shocked and dismayed at the recent events at BNFL. Let me quote BNFL's own words: "At company level it has been recognised that in the mind of many stake holders quality and safety are inextricably linked. Failure to comply in one aspect of an accredited quality system has led to a major loss in confidence in BNFL overall." That is from a management which is now aware of its shortcomings, a management that foolishly engaged in staff reductions, now reversed thank goodness. The highest standards are required of any nuclear installation. I have considerable sympathy for the workers at BNFL let down by a sloppy management. Their livelihoods were endangered. They will now speak out whenever they see evidence of lack of safety culture. I do not want to talk at this state about the viability or wisdom of reprocessing nor about the economics of MOX. That is not under debate, although those matters should be debated in the UK and elsewhere. BNFL is now in for a very difficult period and deservedly. The main reason this is being raised in the European Parliament is to point out the lack of European harmonised standards in the nuclear industry. There are harmonised standards in almost every other aspect of European industry. The Euratom Treaty is deficient and that must be rectified so that we can have the sort of directive we need. We cannot really contemplate enlargement without some sort of acquis communautaire in the nuclear sector. The Commissioner says she does not feel it advisable to produce a communication. Please come to our committee Commissioner and we can discuss this further. I think one is needed in the near future indicating how we could achieve more harmonisation - of course not at the lowest standards in existence but at the most stringent. If you want public acceptance - and many of you do - of the nuclear industry, you have to ensure that. Commissioner you say that as far as new facilities are concerned, if there are to be any, you feel that there is a case. I really do not see the difference, and I urge you to reconsider what you have this evening to come to our committee, look at this one case as an example of what we need for the public of Europe and for the workers in our nuclear plants.
11 April 2000: Outcome of the European Council in Lisbon, 23-24 March 2000 Mr President, congratulations on a particularly focused summit as regards: the clarity of the objectives; the analysis of the tasks needed to meet those objectives; and the built-in progress-chasing system. There was particular emphasis at this summit on the European area of research and innovation, following the excellent communication from Commissioner Busquin. This is a domain of severe under-achievement in the European Union. We need deeper knowledge in science and technology. We have grasped the need to rectify our lack - by means of patent protection, mapping of areas of excellence, tax incentives for research and development, an electronic network for scientists and enhanced mobility for our researchers. The sixth framework programme will be another tool. As well as deeper knowledge, we need wider knowledge. We need people who have been disenfranchised in the areas of science and technology - women, older people and particularly those suffering disadvantage - to be on board in the quest for this wider knowledge. We need to use the knowledge in better ways. Of course, we need new products and we need new processes and we need new ideas about how our society should be run. We also need new sustainable technologies. The European Socialists are fully behind the leap forward which is possible given the cogent analysis that took place at the Lisbon Summit.
16 March 2000: Information society Mr President, congratulations are in order today of course to Mrs Read on her excellent report and to Commissioner Liikanen. This is a positive debate, very positive for Europe, and widespread interest has been shown, as evidenced by the large number of amendments. Let me pick out the points that we think are most important: infrastructure, legal certainty - people must know where they are - and the skills offensive, which ought, please, to be targeted not simply at our school children and students but at groups which have been neglected, such as women and older people, who represent an enormous source of skill if it were to be exploited. It is a disgrace that large countries in the past have not foreseen the need to train, and countries like Germany and the United Kingdom should not be having to bring in workers from elsewhere. I know that we will have a very good advertising and information campaign, and that we will capture the imagination of the citizens of Europe. We must not forget people with disabilities. There is also fact that the documentation is not available to partially sighted people, and that is an oversight which could be put right in future. We must prevent divisions, divisions between the regions of Europe, between the households of Europe and between the individuals of Europe. Business-to-business communications are doing well but we must enhance communications between business and consumers in the European Union, where we lag behind the United States. Of course to do that we have to ensure that people - customers - are convinced of privacy and security, and your measures will help to bring about that confidence. Business-to-consumer communications are particularly important for the elderly, the housebound and for those with family responsibilities who are finding it difficult to juggle work and career, overwhelmingly women. There are ethical issues which we must give regard to, but I am very optimistic, and I think that Mrs Read will continue her work alongside you, and we will find in this House many missionaries for the 'e-Europe' communication.
20 January 2000: Fluorescent lamp ballastsMr President, I am glad that this debate is proving educational and enlightening for you. Sometimes debates are not exciting; it is much more interesting to talk about dramatic weather conditions and storms in France. But if we want to stop events like that, this is the sort of detailed technical work we have to do. I would like to congratulate Mr Turmes for his very thorough work, his technical expertise and his willingness to engage in proper discussions on compromise with Members from other groups. That is appreciated, and I think it is the responsible way we should work in this Parliament. If we take our Kyoto and other obligations seriously and want to prevent tragic weather events, we have to work with some sense of urgency. It is eight years since negotiations began, with the industry concerned and with energy experts, on ways in which we could use the lighting sector to save electricity. There are many reasons for doing that - it is an extremely sensible investment for businesses within the European Union to have energy efficient lighting. We have to have an internal market without unjustified, obstructive trade barriers. Our enterprises throughout the single market have to work in the same conditions; there has to be the famous level playing-field, always bearing in mind particular national concerns and circumstances. Electricity, the Commission reminds us, accounts for 35% of our total primary energy use and produces 30% of our man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Tackling that sector, as well as the transport sector, is essential. It is very appropriate therefore that we look at minimum efficiency standards in any area which uses electricity. We have looked successfully at domestic boilers and industrial boilers, at fridges and freezers and we have some voluntary agreements - about which I might have reservations - in other household appliance sectors. If I can quote from a study carried out in the United Kingdom at our very well known building research centre: "the production of performance standards, particularly for fluorescent lamp ballasts, appears from this study to be one of the most effective actions which the EC could take to reduce energy consumption for lighting in commercial buildings and is thus worth further consideration and development." That very highly esteemed research establishment decided this was a sector we should work on. One problem is that those who buy lights are not necessarily those who use them. Those who invest in buildings are not the people who will pay the electricity bills in future years. The huge numbers of lights, however, mean that we have to look to ensure that those purchasers have to make sensible purchases, by ensuring that what is on the market meets the highest possible standards. We are only talking of newly produced fluorescent lighting ballasts. We are not suggesting that every single one has to be replaced tomorrow or next week, that would be an absurd way to carry on. We are suggesting that, in a very phased, measured and well-considered way, as the current lights in use are replaced, over the next 15-20 years, they are replaced with the best possible technology. A very long adaptation period, that is how we work in the European Union. We do not jump on our enterprises with surprise packages about which they have no warning and which would cause them considerable difficulties. Mr Turmes has indeed been reasonable. The 800 people employed in manufacturing magnetic ballasts will not lose their jobs next week. There will be plenty of time for a phase-in period. We in the Socialist Group are against the additional amendments which have been submitted. They are not in line with the aims of the report. But we support those amendments which we signed as part of the compromise, many of which add, as I am sure the Commissioner would agree, sensible definitions. I hope the Commissioner will tell us that this is only part of her aim to increase energy efficiency within the European Union and make our promises more than mere political headlines.
13 December 1999: World Trade Organization, Millennium Round I think Members should realise what an excellent negotiator we had in Pascal Lamy. Of those taking part in the discussions, he was far and away the most skilful and appeared to show the most stamina. That is important to recognize. The discussions in Seattle were perhaps more complex than could have been anticipated: they were certainly over-ambitious, and that should have been anticipated. There was a quite absurd concentration of time limits, particularly since some of the time was lost because of extraneous events. There was a hysterical press interest, not in what was happening in the discussions, but in what was happening on the streets, which was largely due to complete clumsiness by the local police. There was a complexity because of the sheer number of participants, not only from the countries concerned, but from NGOs, from lobbyists, from national government delegations and from others. The issues themselves were complex. This was not a game of poker, it was a complex game of chess with completely justifiable but contradictory claims taking the stage. The European Union was in fact very well placed. Over the years of our existence we have managed to put, environmental and social rules alongside trade rules. It can be done in international discussions. It is not easy but it is essential and we are well placed because we have, to a limited and not complete extent, managed that. We were well placed because of our links with the ACP countries, although there was an issue over their waiver which clouded the discussions, and because we have always worked well with NGOs. We were well placed in having a large parliamentary delegation. I am pleased that our socialist amendment calling for a parliamentary assembly was taken up world-wide. The issue of agriculture: The United States and other countries refused to understand, even though it is a very simple notion, the multifunctional reasons for our common agricultural policy. They refuse to admit that they subsidize their agriculture in a much less transparent way than we do. As far as environmental issues were concerned, these are not and should not be simply concerns of rich countries, but they were portrayed as such and there is a great deal of work to do in bringing those issues to a state where they are not thought of as protectionism. Mr Lamy says that the biotech working group was fact-finding, but the widespread perception was that it would interfere with the setting-up of the bio-safety protocol and colleagues will say more about that. Animal welfare was perceived by poor countries as a rich person's interest which, to some of them, was almost obscene in the face of starving people. That is something again we will have to work on and similarly with core labour standards. It is important that the WTO is restored in a reformed way. The alternative is the United States making bilateral agreements from a position of strength with the poorer countries of the world. That is not what we want. We, in the Parliament, must follow this issue alongside Mr Lamy and other Commissioners until we get something that is appropriate for the age which we are moving into.
26 October 1999: EC and ESCS budgets for 2000 Mr President, I took over the job of budget rapporteur following the heart attack of Mr Desama who was originally to have done the work for the committee. We hope he will soon be back with us. My thanks and congratulations to Mr Bourlanges for his painstaking work on behalf of the Members of Parliament. The Committee on Industry covers 120 budget lines - so you can see our task is fairly complex! We cover the energy programmes, those relating to industry, including small and medium firms, the research programmes under the framework programmes which of course amount to more or less 60% of the internal policy expenditure of the European Union, and the trade and technical assistance lines. As far as the energy lines are concerned, we were sorry that the Committee on Budgets did not follow our line in increasing the expenditure for Altener and Save. Those are renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes currently in conciliation. If we get, as expected, an increase as a result of conciliation more money will, of course, be asked for next year. As far as research is concerned, and after very many long discussions with Mr Bourlanges, I am interested to know what he intends to do. We, in the Industry Committee, do not want the research programmes broken down into dozens and dozens of lines, one for each key action. But we do want to monitor each key action. I think we have reached an agreement with the Commission that information will be provided to us at intervals and in a form that allows us to monitor that spending in the way we want to. I am also sorry that the Committee on Budgets did not approve moving the training of the nuclear inspectorate in the former Soviet Union from the external policy to the energy line where that training could be done far more efficiently. We have made this argument very clearly and we will make it again. As far as monitoring is concerned, we intend in our committee to take one member responsible for monitoring each of the 120 lines. They will be expected to follow the spending, to look at the way the projects are organised, to visit the projects and to be in a position to let us know how things are going.
7 October 1999: Nuclear accident in JapanAll accidents are tragic for individual people and, of course, we extend sympathy to the workers involved in the incident at Tokaimura, their families and the 300 000 local people who were subjected to intense fear and worry for several days. Accidents occur in all industries, and we have just seen an appalling train crash in the UK this week. But accidents in nuclear installations, especially criticality accidents, are the most feared of all accidents. Rare though they are for obvious reasons, the potential consequences to very large numbers of people are extremely serious. That is why the nuclear industry has to be more careful than other industries. It will not survive as an industry unless the public believe in a strongly instilled and strictly enforced safety culture. Now that culture was breached quite clearly at Tokaimura this week. There will be an investigation. We hope and expect that the findings will be shared with us so that any lessons can be enforced everywhere where nuclear activities take place. Workers in the industry expect this, and the public most certainly does. Nuclear activity requires emergency plans, spot checks by independent inspectors and factoring-in of the possibility of error or negligence. That costs money but it has to be done. All installations in the supply chain are part of safety requirements. Any weak link is dangerous. A wide-ranging investigation and a public explanation are required by those whose concerns have been justifiably raised by this very serious incident indeed in Japan.
5 October 1999: ALTENER Multiannual plan, 1998-2002 Mr President, my congratulations also to Mr Lange, who has shown real interest and enthusiasm in presenting his report and his amendments following on for Mr Robles Piquer. I am pleased to see our new Commissioner, Mrs de Palacio. We look forward to working with her and we hope she will soon share, if she does not already, our enthusiasm for renewable energy. Together with the SAVE Programme, we have in ALTERNER II a way of showing the public of Europe that there are rational ways to meet the challenge of climate change: energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy. We are asking Member States to pledge their commitment to the encouragement of renewable energy - and they all say, individually, that they have this commitment - by signing a Charter on renewable energy - the EURENEW Charter. This would symbolise the added value of working together in the EU on society' s wishes and needs. Of course, the environmental benefits of renewable energy are obvious. But Mr Langen wisely reminds us of the enormous potential for European industry. One needs only to look at Denmark. And I fully support his call for the European Renewable Energies Export Council to be strengthened. Sadly, we lost one of the driving forces with the sudden death, earlier this year, of John Bonda, but others will carry on his work in the Export Council. I must say I am very pleased at the vocational training element of ALTERNER II. That is to be welcomed. The budget is clearly inadequate and has to be increased if this programme is to be properly effective. I hope that an indication can be given by the Council in time for the appropriate changes to be made in the first reading of the 2000 budget. The emphasis on information dissemination in ALTERNER II is very important indeed, and I look forward, if it is available yet, to looking at the Agores Centre on the Worldwide Web which is clearly intended to bring together all sorts of information on renewable energy so that everyone can look it up and can be kept up-to-date. Alongside ALTERNER, and the research into renewable energy in the 5th Framework Programme, which we hope will be very significant, we need urgent flanking measures such as the "feed-in directive"; for the electricity market. I hope we will hear more about this shortly from the Commission. The White Paper raised expectations, and we look forward to the exciting campaign for take-off with its 1 million PV systems, its large wind farm, its biomass and most exciting of all its 100 communities where all the electricity will come from renewable energy. There is nowhere in the whole of European Union where renewable energy is not relevant, whether it is Lapland or the Islands of Greece. The ALTERNER II Programme will work and can work in every Member State and of course, outside the European Union in applicant countries, for example, as well as in the Mediterranean countries where the potential is huge. Renewable energy should become the symbol of what is sensible and progressive about Europe. This programme will help us obtain that symbol.
5 October 1999: SAVE Multiannual plan, 1998-2002 May I congratulate Mrs Ahern on so enthusiastically taking up the work which Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz began. Energy efficiency is one of the few obvious contributions towards the attainment of the targets set for the EU in Kyoto. By saving energy, we produce fewer CO2 emissions and other pollutants. We also make our businesses more competitive. We can create thousands of much needed jobs and we can allow gas and electricity suppliers to make their money in a more sensible way by selling the services which energy gives us - warm homes, cool fridges and machines which work - rather than selling increasingly large amounts of gas and electricity. The main area in which work is needed is actually that of domestic householders. They use more energy than industry and they use it in a profligate way. That is why many of the measures in SAVE II are aimed at households - better design of houses, more economical household appliances and effective education programmes. Unlike Mr van Velzen, I support very strongly the rapporteur' s amendment raising the percentage of savings to 1.5% above what would happen anyway. We only have to look at the progress in some Member States, including the Netherlands, to see that this is a perfectly attainable percentage. I am convinced that the use of regional and local networks like Federene, Energie Cities and Islenet is one of the most effective ways in which to bring about change, and I hope they will be specifically encouraged in SAVE II as they were in SAVE I. It is important, of course, that we monitor SAVE II and that its achievements are quantified. Our committee will shortly be putting in place a mechanism to ensure that we monitor all spending programmes very closely. SAVE II could be an example of how funding can be used in other EU programmes such as structural funds and funding for third countries. The budget again is inadequate. This programme is not enough on its own either. I hope, Commissioner, that you will persevere with the philosophy behind the rational planning directive. I am pleased that you have done so far, and we look forward to your next communications on energy efficiency. It is very good to start the work of this new Parliament with programmes which can make a difference, both to the environment and, of course, to the competitiveness needs of our Member States. Like ALTENER, SAVE II is one of those programmes.
For more information, including the opportunity to search for plenary speeches by subject or by speaker click here to go to the plenary speeches section of the European Union website.
|