President. Mr Evans has the floor. Evans, Robert (PSE). Mr President, my point of order relates to Rules 148 and 135 regarding the distribution of the minutes and particularly regarding roll-call votes. All Members have, this morning, received a booklet containing 113 pages of roll-call votes. I am sure this is of interest to a number of Members and there will be a few Members who want to look at it. But in the interests of economy and the environment, I would suggest that Parliament look again, or ask Parliament's services to look again, at the interpretation of the word 'distribution' . Perhaps the results of roll-call votes could be distributed on the Intranet or made available to Members who need them so that we do not have the waste and the superfluous nature of everybody being distributed with a 113-page document listing roll-call votes. I wonder if you could ask the services to have another look at this please, President. President Thank you, Mr Evans. Your comments will be passed on, not to the services, of course, but to the Bureau. If you were also to add the cost of each of those votes to Parliament' s budget, there would be even more cause for concern. EU-Mexico Interim Agreement President The next item is the report (A5-0066/2000) by Mrs Ferrer, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision on the Community position within the EC-Mexico Joint Council on the implementation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters [5965/1/2000 - C5-0076/2000 - 2000/0024(CNS)]. Ferrer Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the debate I am opening under the very long title you have just announced represents the final phase of Parliament' s work, carried out in close contact with the Commission, to strengthen relations with Mexico on the basis of the principles and values which underpin our democratic system. In May 1999 Parliament gave its assent to an Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement, signed in 1997 between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and Mexico, on the other. Once it has been ratified by all the Member States, it will replace the cooperation agreement signed between the Community and Mexico in 1991. In May 1998 Parliament gave its assent to a provisional interim agreement on trade and related issues associated with the 1997 agreement. The aim was to enable negotiations on liberalising the trade aspects of the global agreement falling within the Community' s competence to begin as soon as possible, without having to wait for ratification by the fifteen Member States to be completed. Now that these negotiations have been concluded and the Council has expressed its view on their content, it falls to Parliament, in response to the Council' s formal consultation, to give its opinion on the results of the negotiations. Here I want to thank the Commission for making this consultation by the Council possible in close cooperation with Parliament - I am delighted about that and I hope it will set a precedent. However, I am sorry it did not adopt the commitment of the previous Commission to keep us informed of the progress of the negotiations, given the importance of the issues involved. Turning to the substance of my report, the first thing I want to highlight is that, although we are dealing with an implementation agreement exclusively concerned with trade, there is a political dimension to bear in mind in expressing our opinion. This is the case because the text my report covers is set in the context of the Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement, and that agreement is a reflection of the will to promote a genuinely democratic political system, respect for human, social and environmental rights and a fairer social balance, thanks to the greater economic development the liberalisation of trade will generate. In fact, Article 1 of that agreement makes respect for democratic principles and human rights, in the widest sense, an essential factor and the very foundation of the agreement. Again, the inclusion of a clause on fulfilment of obligations, providing for the agreement to be suspended in case of failure to meet the obligations laid down in Article 1, also guarantees the commitment of the parties to democracy and respect for fundamental rights. In addition, by institutionalising cooperation between the European Union and Mexico, especially on human rights issues, social affairs and the fight against poverty, an instrument is being created which could be extremely useful for reducing the social inequalities which persist in Mexico and for improving the living conditions of the less advantaged strata of the population. My second point, relating to the content of the negotiations on the implementation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the interim agreement, covering trade in goods, public procurement, competition, the consultation mechanism for questions relating to intellectual property and dispute settlement, is to highlight the fact that this package of measures represents a good agreement. Although for certain sectors there may be flaws - I am thinking specifically of the textiles sector, where the rules of origin issue causes great concern - the effects will be beneficial for both the European Union and Mexico. For the European Union, because the establishment of a free trade area will enable it to rebuild the presence Member States had in Mexican markets before the NAFTA agreement came into force, involving new expansion opportunities for European companies. For Mexico, because it will be able to diversify and introduce balance into its external trade, currently 80% dependent on its NAFTA partners, and at the same time increase the volume of its exports to the European Union, with the consequent favourable impact this increase will have on the Mexican economy. Of course, during the transition period, and until all products have been fully liberalised, the agreement will be more beneficial to Mexico than the European Union, but this asymmetry also takes account of the levels of development and competitiveness of the European economy as compared with Mexico' s. All the same, in spite of this asymmetry, Community producers will clearly be in a much better position to compete in the Mexican market than they have been up to now. For all these reasons, ladies and gentlemen, and by a very large majority, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy recommends a vote in favour of the Council Decision on the result of negotiations whose benefits we must monitor to make sure they genuinely contribute to promoting a more democratic political system and respect for human rights and social justice. Folias Mr President, I should like to talk about a particular issue in order to highlight the risk of its posing a serious problem to the European economy and society. I refer to the European rule of origin of shoes introduced in the agreement between Mexico and the European Union. There is a standing agreement between the Commission and the shoe industry that the rule of origin should apply, owing to increased competition in the industry at global level. Unfortunately, the precise opposite has happened in the agreement with Mexico. Another rule of origin is being applied: Mexico' s rule. By definition, this works to the detriment of the European shoe industry, which is required to export to Mexico at a loss. Consequently, there is an export quota of 865 000 pairs of shoes from Europe to Mexico. In other words, with a population of 90 million Mexicans, we have agreed to export one pair of shoes per 100 inhabitants in Mexico. This is hardly a resounding success. Anything but, in my view. I should like to express the disappointment of these small and medium-sized enterprises in the European Union shoe industry by saying that this problem cannot be solved by our claiming that there is a derogation in the agreement. This particular derogation from the rule of origin affects some 15 000 small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe and 650 000 employees. I hope we do not have many more of these derogations because they will only compound the problems we already face. I would like the Commission to guarantee us that we will not see a recurrence of this derogation in the agreement with Mexico and that it will not be taken as a precedent in future agreements. The Commission ought to realise that if the derogation with Mexico is taken as a precedent, 50% of Europe' s shoe industry will be in danger of being wiped out. What I would like to know is this: is this what the Commission understands by genuine support for small and medium-sized enterprises, which we call the backbone of the European Union? Is this how we are to combat unemployment? I hope that this sort of blunder is not repeated and that the business world of small-and medium-sized enterprises and the workers of the European Union are not left to foot the bill yet again. Linkohr Mr President, I should like to start by thanking Mrs Ferrer for her excellent report. She has gone to a great deal of trouble and has used her report to set out the problems and the advantages and disadvantages of this project with Mexico. This is a trade agreement which falls within the competence of the EU and, as you rightly say, we only have the option of saying yes or no. We cannot renegotiate the agreement. All in all, our Group will vote in favour of this trade agreement, which we welcome. For the rest, I should like to say to Mr Folias, who worries about the problem of footwear that, generally-speaking, trade relations between Europe and Mexico have always proven their worth in the past. We might have been able to dispense with the Lannoye report on chocolate yesterday had Mexico not given us cocoa in the past. In fact, chocolate - "chocolatl" - is a Mexican word. We can therefore use past experience to help develop future relations with Mexico. The advantage to Mexico is obvious. This agreement will enable Mexico to redress the imbalance of its one-way dependence on the USA to a certain extent. I should like to remind the House that 85% of Mexico' s exports go north and only 5% come to Europe. Mexico stands to gain here by achieving a better trade equilibrium. Mexico' s automobile industry, which is partly of European origin, certainly also stands to gain from the possibility of exporting vehicles to Europe. We too stand to gain, as does European industry, be it on the Mexican market or by exporting to the USA via the Mexican market. As far as trade is concerned, there are advantages all round. I should like to go briefly into, or at least touch on, two problems. The first are social problems; in other words, Mexico will certainly have to review its social policy because trade policies alone will not solve social problems. When free trade increases, there are also losers. Poverty in Mexico has risen rather than fallen. Social policy is therefore an important area for Mexico and we should build this into the dialogue with Mexico. The second is scientific and technical cooperation. I think that there is potential here which can be exploited between Europe and Mexico. Sánchez García Mr President, Commissioner, the Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement signed with Mexico in December 1997 is back in this House for analysis of the trade measures negotiated in the context of the interim agreement. A few weeks ago I visited Mexico for a number of reasons, one of which was to find out what Mexicans think of the new framework for relations between their country and the European Union, announced with great fanfare in most of the media. After analysing what I saw, read and heard during my stay in the Republic of the United Mexican States, I came to the same conclusion as Mrs Ferrer, author of the report we are debating today, and I congratulate her publicly. This is the best agreement the European Union has yet signed to promote trade and investment and it will benefit both parties. There have been certain changes in Mexico recently, since the announcement and approval of the agreement, largely in a positive direction. I therefore support the rapporteur' s conclusions although I am concerned about the impact of tariff liberalisation for cut flowers as this could have negative repercussions on certain European regions specialising in this type of agriculture, such as the outermost regions. Coming as I do from the Canary Islands, a region located to the north-east of the continent of Africa, with my political soul divided between Europe and America, I am delighted to witness this debate on Mrs Ferrer' s report. The opinion Parliament is expressing on the association agreement is not just about its trading aspects, but also about its political implications as we experience the extraordinary scenario of globalisation. In my opinion, the implementation of this agreement will undoubtedly take the European Union and Mexico down a road which offers hope of improving the income levels and quality of life of the communities involved at a time and under circumstances which, despite the distances, evoke the legendary meeting between Suchil and Quetzalcoatl, immortalised in Don Salvador de Madariaga' s "El Corazón de Piedra Verde" . Nevertheless, when asked to vote for this report, we have some constructive points to make. First, the Community services and departments responsible need to be provided with more human resources to make trade actions more efficient; and secondly, financial instruments should be made available to companies implementing the various trading aspects of the intended Euro-Mexican partnership, in the old ECIPs, for instance, which brought such good results for Mexico. If that does not happen, there is a risk that this very significant agreement will not be worth the paper it is written on. Kreissl-Dörfler Mr President, this is the third debate on the EU-Mexico agreement and, given that it is the most comprehensive agreement which the European Union has ever concluded with a third country, the principles that mark the sort of cooperation which will be viable in the future should not be thrown to the wind. Both we and the people of Mexico set great store by this agreement. They see it as a chance to correct their one-way dependence on NAFTA. They believe that, in the EU, they have found a partner which stands for democracy, human rights and social and ecological development. Today we have analysed the contract and found that the agreement with the EU not only creates the same sort of relationship as with NAFTA, but that, in parts, it is even worse. Like the rightly failed MAI, freedom of investment, reproduced bilaterally, does nothing to foster a democratically-controlled economy geared to local development. Placing no limit on opening public procurement merely allows large suppliers to swallow up small suppliers all over the world. Provisions such as domestic treatment and bans on conditions cut companies which, for example, prefer to employ women or engage in environmentally sound production, out of the running. The EU has kept derogations open for itself here. Mexico has none! Here is another shortcoming in comparison with NAFTA: the latter has an agreement on employees' rights with a sanction mechanism, while the EU agreement has not even heard of the Social Pact of the United Nations. However, the opposite applies to trade disputes, for which a dispute settlement mechanism is provided together with the possibility of sanctions. We know from the WTO that environmental laws are regularly sidelined as the result of such disputes. "A free trade agreement at the cost of the Mexicans" . It was under this banner that the Mexican civil society called a few days ago for the Senate to improve the agreement and not to rush into signing it. Some points even contradict the Mexican constitution. "We are not 'globalphobes' they write at the end, "but we want globalisation which benefits mankind and a fair world order without social exclusion" . We here in the European Parliament do not oppose an agreement with Mexico. On the contrary! We are unable, however, to vote in favour of this agreement for the reasons stated and must continue to fight for better agreements in the future. One last word: we need a critical voice here in Parliament which continues to support the rightful concerns and demands of Mexican society. Morgantini I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Ferrer, for the recommendation on the implementation of certain articles of the EC-Mexico Interim Agreement on trade. The report is thorough, but I am afraid that I do not agree with the choices and recommendations it makes, although we do welcome some of the criticisms mentioned. However, these criticisms are decisive, and have led us to oppose the motion. I refer, for example, to the insufficient democratic transparency displayed leading up to the agreement, and we, along with all the other Members I imagine, have received a great deal of criticism on this point from both Mexican and European civil organisations, as Mr Kreissl-Dörfler said. We are particularly concerned by the fact that the rapporteur is satisfied with the progress made by Mexico in the area of human rights and democracy since the application of the global agreement. We now have conflicting evidence revealing an increase in violations of human rights, supplied not only by civil society but also by UN representatives and officials, by Mary Robinson herself, by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and by many other sources. The most serious violations include the systematic use of torture, illegal arrests, disappearances, executions by paramilitary death squads, the arrest of trade unionists, bans on strikes and allegations of enforced sterilisation in the State of Guererro. At the same time, the Saint Andrés agreements and the rights of the indigenous peasants are not being observed. All this is common knowledge and I need say no more. We believe, along with the German and Belgian Governments, that we should enforce observance of Article 1 of the Treaty, which contains the fundamental principle, and adopt instruments and set in place practical controls to ensure its implementation. There are many other aspects of this agreement which, we feel, require correction: I will give just one example - it reveals a European Union economic policy which does not take into consideration the social and economic situation in Mexico or its human development. The EU-Mexico Agreement could have negative implications if it does not take into account the need for balanced development, and not uncontrolled liberalisation, which could lead to greater poverty and inequality. Montfort Mr President, we regard the title of the agreement which is the subject of Mrs Ferrer' s report as at best incomplete, at worst dissembling. It would in fact be more accurate to refer to a European Union-NAFTA agreement rather than an agreement associating the European Union with Mexico only. For this agreement, which the rapporteur herself describes as the most important one the European Union has ever signed with a third country, will not only affect our relations with Mexico but will also have implications for our relations with the North and Central American countries as a whole. The Ferrer report, following what is clearly now the fashion in this Parliament, sets itself the objective of helping to create a new framework that will enable European enterprises to compete on equal terms with the United States and Canada. That is a totally unrealistic objective for the near future and it is quite obvious for whose benefit the measures advocated in the text are designed. Indeed, it must be quite clear to everyone that the decline in European exports to Mexico is the result of the NAFTA agreement, which turns the entire area into a single free trade area. Does anyone seriously think, for example, that whatever the details of the system we set up, European textiles and cars, which are currently taxed at 35% and 23%, will soon be able to compete on equal terms with American exports of the same products, which are taxed at 1.8%? Under these conditions, how can anyone justify the fact that the respective markets will be liberalised at different rates, to the detriment of the Europeans? Finally, there is a real fear that this will have an immediate and tangible impact on employment in Europe in the sectors opened to Mexican products, especially in already vulnerable sectors - such as textiles, to name but one. These sectors do not need to face further competition, in return for opening up to markets blocked by the Americans. Moreover, the supposedly reassuring formulation of the rules on protecting designations of origin, and more generally on intellectual property, are more likely to have the opposite effect; their vagueness and wording seem more of a threat than a guarantee. Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso Mr President, the conclusion of trade negotiations between the European Union and Mexico, considered from a positive perspective, could mean a new and durable framework for the institutionalisation of political dialogue and cooperation, provided that this trade pact works to the benefit of both sides. Unfortunately, the experience of NAFTA shows us that this target was not achieved automatically, because there is evidence that free trade has had an adverse effect on the lives of many people, exacerbated environmental damage, and marginalised wide sections of the Mexican population - all the more so as Mexican human rights NGOs have also reported a deterioration in the human rights situation since the interim agreement came into force in 1998. So, all in all, the on-going agreement has not allowed Mexico to protect vulnerable labour, intensive sectors and minimal environmental standards. In the light of this we cannot be optimistic, because the procedure followed in the recent negotiations, without effective control either in this House or in the Mexican Senate, provides ample evidence that the agreement lacks those mechanisms absolutely necessary to ensure that the damage currently being done will not be repeated again in the future. Westendorp y Cabeza Mr President, Commissioner, we are about to vote on one more step down a new road, begun in mid-1995, when, like anything new, it met with quite a lot of criticism and quite a lot of reluctance. Fortunately, that criticism and reluctance is now a thing of the past; unfortunately, however, we still hear some reservations, like those voiced in Parliament just now. I think we need to realise that what we are doing is actually forestalling the fears expressed here, with an agreement which, in this case, is purely about trade. So we are forestalling these fears about Europe losing ground in Mexico against the exporting power of the United States. What is more, this agreement means we are also strengthening the country' s democratisation process. As a result of that 500 year-old meeting of civilisations, Mexico is a country culturally and politically bound to Europe. But politically and geo-politically, the fundamental weight has essentially lain with the United States, its powerful neighbour to the North. And until these agreements start to bite, the hegemony of the United States in terms of economics, trade and investment will remain virtually absolute. But Mexico has also made great progress on human rights. It has been granted permanent observer status at the OECD and in 1999 it reformed its constitution to grant autonomy to its National Commission on Human Rights So, for both economic and political reasons, we urge approval of this agreement. Knörr Borràs Mr President, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance does not have a common position on this issue. The latter part of the group, representing, as you know, groups which regard themselves as defenders of nations and regions internal to the European Member States, take a different view and, of course, members of the group are free to adopt different positions. Obviously we share a basic concern about everything relating to human rights and sustainable development, especially in a context which leaves no room for social exclusion. However, many of us feel we cannot realistically and sincerely oppose an agreement like the one before us today, primarily because we believe it will create objective conditions for further development and greater democracy and because, in addition, this agreement includes a suspension clause for non-respect of human rights. I also think measures can be introduced to monitor its effects at all levels, not just on tariff changes and so on. I am more worried about the points Mr Sánchez García made: for example, that the agreement we are signing cannot be implemented because there are insufficient resources and services; that it will have perverse effects because we have not provided financial instruments for companies. So let us do all that and let us be vigilant about preventing what we want to prevent: the continued violation of human rights. Marset Campos Mr President, first I want to congratulate Mrs Ferrer on her excellent report, but despite that I also have to record that, regrettably, we cannot vote for it this time. Our decision has nothing to do with her work, it relates to the situation in Mexico. Three weeks ago I met with President Zedillo in Madrid and expressed our concern about the news we were receiving on violations of human rights in Mexico, the situation at the university and the situation in the indigenous towns of Chiapas and other localities. Mr Zedillo promised to let me have full details to prove to me that our concern was groundless. The days have gone by and still the information from Mr Zedillo has not come. Meanwhile, information is reaching us from many sources indicating that serious human rights violations are continuing in many places, increasing our concern. We quite understand that the economic content of the agreement is intended to bring about improvements, but we also recognise that we have not been able to achieve our aim of shifting the tremendous weight of North American influence that bears down on Mexico and other Latin American countries like a jackboot. Last time, we consulted with the parties on the left in Mexico on how to vote and we decided to abstain. This time we cannot even abstain, because the Mexican Government needs to be sent a signal - in friendship and solidarity - that it must be serious about respecting human rights, complying with the San Andrés undertakings and restoring democratic normality, as laid down in our democracy clause. Seguro Mr President, I will not discuss the content of this agreement since many speakers, including the rapporteur, have already covered it. I just want to highlight the political significance of the signing of this free trade agreement between the European Union and Mexico. First, from the strategic and political angles, it is important for the European Union to build up its relationship with a country that is so important in that part of the world and which, above all, is making progress in terms of respect for the values of human rights. Mexico' s membership of the OECD was just mentioned, and its observer status at the Council of Europe should also be remembered. Nor should we forget the opportunities represented by this market of 100 million people. But obviously this political symbolism can in no way allay our concern about environmental issues, social issues and above all human rights issues, and many speakers have already referred to them here today. What we do know is that our concern must make us more rigorous in our relations with Mexico. That is just what we will be in ten days' time. The European Parliament' s delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico will be visiting that country. We are not going just for institutional dialogue between partners, between the Congress and the European Parliament. We are going to talk to non-governmental organisations. We are also going to Chiapas to talk to the indigenous people and representatives of local society. That is how rigorous we believe we need to be but it will not detract from our support for approval of this agreement. Carraro Overall, I feel that we can but support this agreement, for the reasons expressed by Messrs Westendorp y Cabeza and Seguro, whose opinions I share. However, today' s debate has revealed that it does have shortcomings, such as the failure to make an adequate connection between economic liberalisation and the guarantee of the respect of human and democratic rights, the rights of trade unions and rights in the area of child employment. The report also contains an alarming derogating clause regarding the origin of products, which will obviously penalise European produce, in particular in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Since this involves highly labour-intensive European manufacturing industries, it would be truly absurd if this penalisation were to benefit practices which run contrary to the principles of human rights or to benefit unacceptable working practices such as child employment or an absence of trade union protection. It really would be absurd if, to the detriment of our own footwear and clothing industries, we were to work to the advantage of companies and situations which violate those human rights that we have always vowed to protect. I therefore feel that the Council and the Commission should take great care when implementing this agreement, and continually monitor its application for as long as it is in force. I support the agreement in its entirety, for it certainly represents a step forward. However, I also call for scrutiny, care and prudence regarding this agreement for its entire duration. Liikanen Mr President, first of all I want to thank Madam Ferrer for the report and Parliament for the very constructive input with regard to the results of the trade negotiations with Mexico. These results of the trade negotiations are based on the EU-Mexico agreement to which this Parliament gave the green light on 6 May last year. This agreement is based on human rights and democratic principles. It covers all our relations with Mexico, notably cooperation and political dialogue. The negotiating results are balanced, ambitious and offer a window of opportunity for both sides. All important areas are included, notably trade in goods, services, procurement, intellectual property rights, competition, capital movement, investment and dispute settlement. EC operators will be very rapidly able to compete on the Mexican market on an equal footing with industries elsewhere, notably the United States. As in all negotiations, compromises had to be found in certain areas but the results are a balanced package assuring market access while preserving specific sensitivities. Last, but not least, I would like to express the Commission's high appreciation of the very short time period of one month in which the Parliament will be delivering its opinion. It is very important because it will pave the way for organising a meeting of the EC-Mexico Joint Council on the margins of the Lisbon Council next week. This will allow for the rapid entry into force of the results which, as you recognise, are in both our and Mexico's interest. President Thank you very much, Mr Liikanen. The debate is closed. The vote will take place at 12 noon. Information society for All President The next item is the report (A5-0067/2000) by Mrs Read, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the communication from the Commission on a Commission initiative for the Special European Council of Lisbon, 23 and 24 March 2000: Europe - An information society for all [COM(1999) 687 - C5-0063/2000 - 2000/2034(COS)]. Read Mr President, may I start by thanking the Commission for its timely, well-judged and well-forecasted document. This is, of course, timed to coincide with the summit in Lisbon next week, and Parliament has had to work extremely speedily, for which I thank so many colleagues who have helped with this and, of course, the secretariat. When I was a young child, a library was opened in a village where I was born and brought up; when the head teacher of the village school opened the library, he said that there were over 4 000 books in the library, and I thought with all the wisdom of a six-year old child: well, that is all the books in the world. Now, I personally own over 4 000 books, and, although this is hardly a knowledge revolution in itself, it is some indication, on a personal level extrapolated to a political level, of the pace of change in how knowledge is accessed, distributed, applied and refined. We ought to put this into some sort of context, though, and remind ourselves that the majority of people in the world have never made and probably never will make even one phone call. The Commission proposals and Parliament's response give a clear acknowledgement that the market can and should be the motor for much of this change, but not in every case. The challenge is to work out when the European Union should let the market do the driving, and when we should intervene and regulate - when we should intervene, in whose interests and for how long. We should remember - and the Commission proposal and Parliament's response highlight the fact - that third-generation mobile telephones, on which so much of our future depends, are an area where clearly the European Union has an important lead, and that this lead is partly, though not wholly, explained by intervention. The adoption of the GSM standard has meant that the European Union has a tremendous advantage. Our report mentions matters relating to social protection and the social implications of this change, and I am indebted to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and particularly Mr Cercas, draftsman of the opinion from that committee - the only committee that has been able to complete an opinion in the short space of time available - for his hard work. If I can explain procedurally and very briefly, the Social Affairs Committee voted on Monday evening at the same time as the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and, with the agreement of the draftsman, I have taken over some of his proposals and put them down in my own political group's name. I hope that there will be support for those, because they go into a considerable amount of important detail. Other amendments are looking at matters relating to disability rights. I have consulted widely about the need to ensure that certain fundamental principles about the rights of disabled users and disabled people at work are incorporated into this report, and I hope into future legislation under the 1999 review of telecommunications legislation, at a sufficiently early stage. We have amendments about consumer protection - so important in the establishment of trust in e-commerce - on the future of taxation, on the implications for healthcare and for transport. Particularly important are going to be the employment consequences already seen and I tried hard to obtain a balance: not to be too alarmist because, of course, some of these changes will mean unemployment, but, on the other hand, to look at the opportunities for new sorts of work that the changes will bring. Whilst I was researching for these comments to make to you today, I looked for examples, because I think these illustrate so well to the citizens of the European Union how these developments will bring benefits to their lives. It is important, too, that we in Parliament and in the institutions of the European Union also apply modern methods, methods characterised by transparency and openness, in our own deliberations. I should like to use my final few seconds to draw to your attention three projects in my own area. One of these is in Rutland, the smallest county in England, where a virtual Rutnet was set up, bringing together people in rural, isolated communities for purposes of leisure, transport, employment and social life generally. Further north, the Nottingham rural community council have set up a similar project in an area of serious mining deprivation, and this is bringing enormous benefits to many of the people in that area. On a broader basis, M-net, the European East Midlands network helping small businesses and craft enterprises and linking in with universities and colleges, is also important. Finally, some comments, Mr President, on what the future holds. It is interesting to try to look into the future, and I should like to quote from the words of a famous Louis Armstrong song, 'What a wonderful world' : 'Babies are born, we watch them grow, they'll learn much more than I'll ever know' . I think for all of us the future for our children and grandchildren is a future of great opportunity, though also of great uncertainty. It is praiseworthy that the Commission is looking to play a leading, pivotal role in this, and I commend the Commission proposals and my own report to you. Cercas Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, ladies and gentlemen, before starting on my speech on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I want to express our very sincere and warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Read. We have been working against the clock and we have been dealing with an excellent and supportive fellow Member, who has been very open to accepting all the points our committee wanted to raise in this important debate. Many thanks for your report and your skill, Mrs Read. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has welcomed the Commission' s very important initiative, e-Europe, for the Special European Council to be held in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March, with support and optimism. We naturally applaud the Commission' s aim of making the information society benefit all sectors and all regions but now, with the Commissioner here, we also have the opportunity to consider the citizens' viewpoint and remind the Commission and the public that rhetoric in announcing objectives and expressing desires is not enough. We want these words transformed as firmly as possible into specific objectives and precise financial commitments, because that is the only way to get a real strategy covering every aspect of the information society. And the strategy will only be of use to the weakest groups and individuals, and those who are most at risk of exclusion from the new society, if there are concrete commitments. No doubt the Commission has the noblest intentions, but, looked at from the viewpoint of the workers and the least advantaged people, it still has not answered the questions this Parliament has raised in many documents, for example, the report on the Green Paper entitled "Living and Working in the Information Society: People First" . We still do not have much idea of who is going to finance the massive programme to teach basic digital literacy which Europe needs to close the gap with the United States. We do not have much idea of how the responsibilities can be divided between governments and Commission, or what role trade unions and civil society can play. So we want supplementary analyses taken into account, we want firmer commitments, we want a specific point about strengthening employment and social cohesion in the information society - because there is nothing about that in the Commission' s communication - and we want a strategy with guidelines, recommendations and indicators. We want adults mentioned, not just young people, we want disadvantaged groups mentioned and we want you to remember equality of opportunity too. The new society must not exacerbate inequality between men and women. Commissioner, there are great opportunities here, but they must reach all the people. And we want the European social model to be defended. So we are asking for a step forward, with more specific commitments and far more adequate political and financial efforts. Niebler Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, the e-Europe initiative by the European Commission is to be welcomed in principle. We all agree that new technologies will lead to extensive change, not only in our business life but in all aspects of our social life. It is also true that the evolution from industrial society to information society cannot be halted and that it therefore makes political sense to prepare Europe for the information society as best we can. I therefore expressly welcome the statement in the e-Europe initiative that its prime objective is to accelerate the positive transformation to the information society in the European Union and gear the transformation towards social and regional integration. The European Commission sets out ten measures in its communication on the e-Europe initiative, which should level the playing field in the run up to the information society in Europe. As welcome as the individual measures are, they need to be structured as a whole and clear priorities need to be set for our policy. This includes clearly differentiating which tasks the European Union can and must take care of itself and which tasks come within the jurisdiction of the individual Member States, taking account of the fact that some Member States and regions have been promoting the new technologies and fostering their acceptance by their citizens for years now. In this respect, the summit in Lisbon should table recommendations to the individual states, without imposing comprehensive obligations or heavy financial burdens. What must the European Union do within the framework of the e-Europe initiative? In my opinion, the following priorities should be taken care of by the Union and should have been addressed as core points in Mrs Read' s report, for which I should like, at this point, to thank her. First: we must create an open, modern, high-performance multimedia infrastructure. The policy objective must be to ensure that Europe has a modern, high-performance infrastructure which allows valuable quality telecommunications services to be supplied and demanded from the telephone via the PC and television. This includes cheaper Internet access for all the citizens of Europe, which means fostering even more competition in local networks, for example by unbundling customer access. It also means that all platforms must be made accessible to service providers at competitive prices; this might include making television cables available. It also means that the policy regarding frequencies in Europe will need to be reviewed and we will need to take a more strategic approach based on economic principles, as you have suggested, Commissioner. But, in so doing, we must not, of course, forget commercial applications which are generally provided in the public interest, such as public service radio. On the contrary, this must be taken into account when frequencies are being allocated so that it can fulfil its purpose as an opinion-forming institution which provides a platform for a variety of opinions. Secondly: we must quickly create a legal framework for electronic commerce. This means that we must deal swiftly with legislative proposals pending, such as the e-commerce directive or the directive amending copyright protection. However, caution is required in the legislative area in that we must not over-regulate; in other words, the first question with future legislative proposals should always be, do we actually need this? Thirdly: we need an e-Europe test bench for European initiatives. I have already referred to the fact that the changes in information technology and the new media affect all areas of life. Consequently, it is advisable to set all initiatives at European level on the e-Europe test bench. In other words... (The President cut the speaker off) Mr President, I apologise. Please be so kind as to allow me to finish my sentence. I have inadvertently run over time, but allow me to use my closing sentence to stress once again that I welcome the e-Europe initiative and to say that the suggestions which I had made would have been taken into account in my intervention. McNally 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 schoolchildren 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 the 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. Thors Mr President, Commissioner, the present initiative is important for the purpose of making decision makers in general more aware of developments, but also because levels of development differ very greatly from one European country to another. We can also see this from the follow-up document prepared by the Commission. The initiative is important if we are to stop having to say that the United States is the overall leader within this developing field. According to the "2000 IDC/World Times Information Society Index" , published in February, Sweden has overtaken the United States as the leading information economy. The United States occupies second place. Finland, Norway and Denmark follow, in that order. People may hold different views as to the value of this type of investigation, but I think it is important to emphasise that the US model is not the only one which leads to success in the IT society, something which far too many people have said in this House. Scandinavia is acquitting itself well with its social infrastructure and also, perhaps, with its pensions systems. We ought to bear this in mind, something I am convinced the Commission has done. We should also remember that the EU countries are very different from one another and that developments are very rapid. This must be reflected in the action plan. It is also important that the countries which are forging ahead most quickly should not be checked in their development. It is important that we should clarify what is being done at EU level and what is being done with EU resources and that we should be prepared to make changes to regional policy and redirect some resources for research in ways that benefit "e-Europe" . In view of countries' different levels of development in the IT sphere, I am also sceptical about information plans and campaigns at EU level. "e-Europe" means more than just "e-commerce" . The Directive on electronic commerce deals for the most part with things other than trading on the part of consumers. I should like to appeal to the Commission to pay attention to the question which is being discussed in an adjoining room with Federal Trade Commissioner Thompson: that of how we are to increase consumer confidence. The consumer has to be king when it comes to electronic commerce. Otherwise, it will not properly take off. When alternative ways of solving disputes are discussed, we ought to collaborate globally with the United States. Nonetheless, we should also support the OECD in its work. The issues of broadband communications and of good infrastructure are on the agenda in the majority of countries. There is a need for diversity, but now more standards are being sought for Digital Subscriber Lines with the help of which it will be possible to upgrade the network. It is widely maintained that telephone companies are not making use of the available technology because standards are lacking. Smart cards, encryption, mobile phones and "e-Europe" constitute our strength. We shall persist with developments in these areas but, when it comes to standards,
{'language': 'en'}