Resumption of the session President I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 28 November 1996. Tribute President Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry to have to tell you that Alain Poher died this morning. Alain Poher was a Member of this Parliament from the time when it was first created, in 1952. He went on to occupy various positions of office until the year 1978. Amongst other things he was the chairman of the Christian Democrat Group, and then from March 1966 until March 1969 he served as President of the European Parliament. He then went on to preside over the fortunes of the French Senate. Throughout his life, Alain Poher was one of the most enthusiastic promoters of the construction of Europe. He was indefatigable in its defence, drawing political lessons from the catastrophic events of the Second World War. On behalf of the European Parliament, and at a personal level too, I should like to express my sincere condolences to Alain Poher's family and also to the authorities of the French Republic. I should now like to ask you to show your respect by observing a minute's silence. (The House rose and observed one minute's silence) Approval of the Minutes President The Minutes of the last sitting have been distributed. Are there any comments? (Parliament approved the Minutes) Pasty Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, could I please have your attention for a moment. Last Tuesday, my country was plunged into mourning following a dreadful, cowardly attack. That attack left four people dead: a French citizen, a Canadian citizen, and two Moroccan students. Once again, an act of barbarism has been committed on European soil. I am reminding you of these facts because, implicitly, I want to prevent terrorism from becoming, as it were, trivialized. Several European countries are steeped in blood as a result of terrorism: Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland and France. We must show clearly our determination to stamp out this evil. In order to do this, we must increase coordination between European police forces and judicial systems, because our fellow citizens would never approve of a situation in which the abolition of borders resulted in an increase in acts of terrorism. President The House shares your abhorrence at the crime which has been committed in France, Mr Pasty, and joins you in opposing the trivialization of terrorism in any of the Member States of the European Union. I expressed our sympathy and abhorrence at this attack to the French Government last week. Howitt Mr President, on a point of order under Rule 19(4), I would ask for your urgent support for Mr Ken Wilkinson of Basildon which is in my constituency. He is one of at least 72 British lorry drivers stranded in Salonika by the blockade mounted by Greek farmers. I have been in negotiation with the Greek authorities and British consular officials throughout the weekend and welcome the fact that a ferry has been laid on to evacuate the stranded drivers starting tonight. However, at the moment there is no access to that ferry and the danger is that the drivers will be moved to Athens but still be subject to the blockade. I understand that if they do not move before Wednesday of this week, they will be unable to return home for Christmas. Mr Wilkinson and his colleagues are running short of cash and fuel and are bitterly cold at night. I am told the mood amongst other drivers is angry and that a violent confrontation cannot be ruled out. Mr President, I am not asking you to comment on the details of the dispute but I am asking you to write to the Greek Government to request it to do everything possible to assist the lorry drivers innocently caught up in the blockade so that they may return home. President I understand the concern for a citizen from your constituency, Mr Howitt, and for all the lorry drivers who are affected. At the same time, however, I admire your ingenious interpretation of the Rules of Procedure and Rule 19. I have the impression, ladies and gentlemen, that there are likely to be further contributions in a similar vein. I shall not allow that to happen. As is my duty, I shall of course now give the floor to those who have asked to raise points of order, but you should not think that I shall refrain from interrupting you. We have had enough of this for today. Mr Cabezón Alonso has the floor on a point of order. Cabezón Alonso Mr President, in the next few days, before the end of the year, the Guatemalan Government and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Union will be signing a final peace agreement in that Central American country. Just as this Parliament has noted infringements of human rights in Guatemala, I ask it now to send its congratulations on this peace agreement. President That was not a point of order! Order of business President The next item is the order of business. The final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 5 December 1996 pursuant to Rule 95 of the Rules of Procedure has been distributed. Tuesday: President The Group of the European Radical Alliance has requested the withdrawal of the reports by Mr Christodoulou, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the financing of the enlargement of the Union, and by Mr Rehder, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the study on alternative strategies for the development of relations in the field of agriculture between the EU and the associated countries with a view to future accession of these countries. I give the floor to Mrs Lalumière to explain this request. Lalumière Mr President, my group would like both Mr Christodoulou's report and Mr Rehder's report to be removed from the agenda, and for the same reason. In effect, these two reports are concerned with the future enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of Central Europe, a subject which is of major importance. These reports deal with certain points which, whilst important, are nevertheless of a somewhat technical nature. I am thinking in particular of the report by Mr Christodoulou, which covers budgetary and accounting matters. The image, or impression, given by these reports runs the risk of appearing very negative to the countries of Central Europe, particularly since in this instance the reports are being dealt with separately from other reports, in particular the general reports submitted by Mr Oostlander. This is why we believe that it is not a good policy to deal with the Christodoulou and Rehder reports on Tuesday. Even if it turns out that substantial amendments are proposed to these reports, the political message being sent to the countries of Central Europe will still run the risk of being a negative message. This is why we think it reasonable to remove these reports from the agenda now, so that they can be re-examined later, within a wider political framework. Santini Mr President, if the ARE Group had not made this proposal, we in the Group Union for Europe would have done so. We did not find the terms in which the discussion on this highly important report was conducted - particularly within the Committee on Agriculture - at all convincing. Of course we are all keenly in favour of enlargement and integration, but because of the haste with which these two reports were put together, we think this may not allow us to achieve these objectives with sufficient knowledge of the facts. In the case of the Committee on Agriculture, our colleague Mr Rehder, the rapporteur - demonstrating an excess of goodwill, perhaps, and in an effort to be too accommodating - has broadened the scope too much, to the point that he has lost sight of certain concrete parameters which, in our view, should form the basis of assessment for the purposes of enlargement. We therefore believe that these two reports should be referred back to committee for more detailed and specific analysis. The Union for Europe therefore supports the proposal to refer these reports back to committee and withdraw them from the agenda. Christodoulou Mr President, I will refer basically to my own report. It was debated repeatedly by the Committee on Budgets over a fairly long period of time, and there are two reasons why it should not be referred back. The first is that this is necessarily an interim report, because a great deal of information is required to complete the picture and it will take a very long time for the Commission to prepare that information. In other words, we are talking about years rather than months. Because of this, a general framework must be worked out to show exactly what the problems are, to include a description of the policy to be pursued in the sensitive financial sector, and those matters cannot be put off because no decisions whatsoever can be taken without knowledge of the real facts and figures that constitute the financial consequences. Besides, Mr President, I must comment that what Mrs Lalumière told us, namely that the issue could create negative impressions in the Central and Eastern European countries, is like burying one's head, ostrich-like, in the sand. What we are saying at this time is that we must describe things as they really are, so that those who take decisions will be aware of what is involved. For that reason, this study must be examined now and not later. Rehder Mr President, I can of course understand my fellow Members' wish to have a meaningful debate. What I fail to understand, however - because this question has already been under discussion for almost a year - is the fact that these colleagues have not spoken out before now in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development or here in the House. As for the negative impression which has been referred to, there can be no question of creating such an impression when we are speaking of Eastern Europe in terms of partnership and friendships. I believe that the report merits closer reading on this point. In fact, I think that what is going on here - and the motion by Mr Santini and his colleagues bears me out - is an attempt to prevent any agricultural reform at all, in other words to block a sensible and balanced agricultural policy. That is why I am in favour of proceeding in a cooperative way with the work that we have been doing up to now. President I now put to the vote the request for withdrawal of the report by Mr Christodoulou. (Parliament rejected the request) President I now put to the vote the request for withdrawal of the report by Mr Rehder. (Parliament rejected the request) Andrews Mr President, I am glad that we are concerned about human rights. Róisín McAliskey, a young Irish woman, was arrested some weeks ago and sent to England. Since then she has been in at least four different prisons including an all-male prison, despite the fact that she is four months pregnant and not well. She is suspected of a crime in Germany but has not been convicted. The brutality with which she has been treated in the English prisons is outrageous and I ask you to intervene with the British Government so that something can be done. Róisín McAliskey is the daughter of a former Westminster MP and this treatment of her is against all principles of human rights in the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. I plead with you to intervene on her behalf so that she can be treated humanely and decently. President I am prepared to take action in any case which is presented to me. However, you could have asked me this in writing. You should not have turned it into an announcement in the sitting. Prevention of drug dependence President The next item is the report (A4-0398/96) by the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee (C4-0575/96-94/0135(COD)) for a European Parliament and Council Decision on adopting a programme of Community action on the prevention of drug dependence within the framework of action in the field of public health (1996-2000) (rapporteur: Mr Burtone). Burtone Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the programme of Community action on the prevention of drug dependence is nearing its final stage. At first reading - it must, quite frankly, be acknowledged - we were more ambitious; now, however, partly as a result of the action of certain groups, the legislative process has in fact caused us to scale down the project as first conceived in committee and then in this Chamber. Nevertheless, approval of the programme of action and the joint text which came out of it in the Conciliation Committee is still a decision with a high political, social and ethical profile. Social Europe is now indeed emerging in full force. The desperate plight of so many young drug addicts who suffer side-effects from their drug dependence in both social and health terms is becoming a priority for the European Parliament and the other Institutions. Europe is once again rejecting the short cut of drug legalization: this has been stated unequivocally in the committee responsible, in the Conciliation Committee and in this Chamber. Europe has said 'no' because accepting legalization means heading for defeat, throwing in the towel, in a sense contemplating State-sponsored drugs. In doing this, the route Europe has chosen to take may be longer and more difficult, but it is also more exciting: to combat drugs is to reaffirm a European policy which aims to reduce demand for drugs in our Community. To that end we commit ourselves to taking action on youth poverty. But using what instruments? I said earlier that these had been scaled down, even though their positive aspects must be appreciated. The educational and information campaigns under the programme which has been adopted are centred primarily on the family, but also on schools and leisure centres, with a view to implementing youth policies capable of saving future generations of young people completely. Particular attention is paid to risk groups, those young people who live in the run-down suburbs of our cities and whose quality of life is not up to present-day standards. We focus on adolescents who, more than any other group, run the risk of being overwhelmed by the new synthetic drugs. On the basis of this robust initiative, Parliament is seeking to provide the existing structures with the means of delving more deeply into the questions, issues and problems which need to be identified and of developing new strategies to combat drug dependence. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction needs to be strengthened, made more effective and linked in a more organic way with non-governmental organizations and those who work at the frontiers of the drug problem and need advice and guidance to help them become more effective. The programme also focuses on training, because work is crucial to reducing poverty among the young. I have said that there are limitations and I should like now to list them all, clearly and with absolute candour. Our action should also have been targeted at secondary and tertiary prevention, as Parliament has, on several occasions, said that it is right and proper to treat, rehabilitate and reintegrate young people if they are to escape from the drug culture. But to do this we had still to provide a response in terms of primary prevention, because a young person who kicks the drug habit is the living proof that drugs can be beaten. In conclusion, I should like to say, Mr President, that Parliament, which has already included the prevention programme in a stronger policy cracking down on the 'drugs mafias' which feed off the tragedy of drug dependence, must give a broader response and look at the many organizations providing therapy and the voluntary groups which have already done such a lot of work in this area. De Coene Mr President, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I should like to thank Mr Burtone for being so patient and to congratulate him on the result he has achieved. The European Parliament has reached agreement with the Council and the Commission on an action programme on the prevention of drug dependence. There were considerable differences of opinion even here in Parliament, and it has to be said that under the current conciliation procedure, a small minority which may have no knowledge of the issue at stake can impose its will on a much larger majority. Nevertheless, most Member States are coming to realize that with drugs, combating demand is more important than combating supply. Combating supply may well be justified from a legal or even moral standpoint, but it has little long-term effect. Only 10 % of drugs are intercepted, and they remain widely available. Let us start from this basis, and stop trying to pretend to ourselves that society will one day be free of drugs, much as we would like it to be. If we face up to reality, we can develop much more efficient prevention and health policies. The health situation in each country is what counts, and a country will not become healthier by imposing stiff penalties on cannabis users, or by making a great song and dance about closing its borders. If we analyse each country's results objectively, we can see that tough policies seldom produce tough results. We are now in a position to make ECU 29 million available, so let us ensure that it is put to good use. This action plan is rather more realistic and pragmatic than was originally proposed. Drug addicts are now seen as people who are ill, rather than criminals; projects are to be organized among drug users and on the streets; there is to be dialogue with young people, and support for a policy of risk reduction for individuals and society as a whole. All of these are to be welcomed. But we should not delude ourselves that this is some kind of great leap forward. The Heads of State and Government are about to meet in Dublin, and we hope that there will be good news for the millions of unemployed, for all those young people whose future prospects are currently so bleak, and for the children whose parents are out of work because our tax and social security rules have not been harmonized. If Europe fails to make any progress here, then prevention plans like this one will really make very little difference. Dell'Alba Mr President, I should like to raise a point of order. I listened to Mr Burtone very carefully: I respect his political opinions, but when, in his capacity as rapporteur in a conciliation procedure concerning an action programme for the prevention of drug addiction, he maintains that in this document Parliament is against legalization, I should like to ask him which recital or article his statements are based on. Otherwise, I would ask him to withdraw them, at least as regards the text we are discussing. President Strictly speaking, that was not a point of order, Mr Dell'Alba. Without further criticism, I now give the floor to Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Oomen-Ruijten Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Burtone on his report, which I have to say is a particularly fine piece of work. We encountered a few problems during our discussions and in the vote at second reading. I would point out - for the benefit of Mr De Coene - that when there was some question of extending the programme by adding a number of specific projects, which the PPE Group voted against at the time because we felt that it was not consistent with the legal basis, the Council went on to demonstrate that what you wanted to do was not possible, despite everything that was said about me in the Dutch press. Next weekend the question of joint action is to be discussed at the Dublin summit, which is to examine how we can work together to tackle drug dependence in Europe. I know that there are a number of Members here who think that the answer is to legalize everything. Mr De Coene and a number of others have tabled a motion for a resolution to the effect that drugs must at least be freely available to users. Mr De Coene has put his name to this. I would never support this 'tough policy' , to use his own words, and I will tell you why. Thanks to such a policy - I do not know if you read the Dutch newspapers - the Jellinek Clinic, a very reputable institution, has found that 30 % of all 17 and 18 year-olds in the Netherlands today have already experimented with drugs. Similar results have been obtained in research by the public health authority in the province of Groningen, which is typical of the country as a whole. When I look at these results and think of the tolerant approach which allows soft drugs to be widely available, even for young children, I feel that instead of simply glorifying the policy that the Netherlands is pursuing, we should use this action programme as an opportunity to think long and hard about which is best: the tolerance which is practised in the Netherlands, or the repressive approach adopted by a number of other Member States. There may yet be a middle way. I would call on the Commission to use the comparative study of current legislation produced by the European Monitoring Centre in Lisbon and Mr Burtone's action programme as the basis for examining what the policy implications are and how we can reproduce the good results achieved in the Netherlands, in terms of the number of drugs-related deaths and the number of cases of HIV infection, in other countries. On the other hand, how can we reduce the side-effect that the Netherlands is suffering from - the fact that three times as many young people as four years ago are now trying drugs for the first time? I should like to know what people think about this. President I see from the nature of some of the comments which are being made that I need to draw your attention to the Rules of Procedure. Personal statements - which are quite clearly what is involved here - can be made only at the end of the debate. If you wish to make a personal statement, then you should inform me pursuant to Rule 108. That is the rule on the subject. You will then have the opportunity of doing so at the end of the debate. I think that Mr De Coene was contemplating a personal statement, and also Mr Burtone. We shall take all these at the end of the debate, but I would ask you to look at the Rules of Procedure beforehand. These are personal statements, and not contributions to the debate. Baldi Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we need to invest heavily in prevention, information and education. This is what emerges from the programme of Community action adopted in relation to prevention of drug dependence, which is designed to contribute to the fight against drug dependence, in particular by encouraging cooperation among the Member States, supporting their campaigns and promoting coordination of their policies and programmes. The joint text agreed within the Conciliation Committee and so ably supported by Mr Burtone - whom I should like to compliment on the vast amount of excellent work he has done - outlines the measures that have to be taken. These relate, firstly, to data, research and evaluation, in an effort to improve knowledge of drugs and drug dependence and their consequences, using, in particular, information supplied by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon. The second group of measures concern information, health education and training and are designed to help improve information, health education and training for the purpose of preventing drug dependence and the associated risks, in particular as regards young people in the relevant categories and particularly vulnerable groups, including drug addicts. Other important aspects are: treating the addict as a person who is ill and not as a criminal; prevention, which must cover all kinds of narcotics and psychotropic substances, including the new synthetic drugs; and the need to mobilize all the sectors involved, supporting multidisciplinary cooperation between the public and private sectors, including NGOs. Lastly, I think that the search for new coordinated strategies which are consistent with other Community programmes is of fundamental importance, with continuous assessment of results as they are achieved. This should help prevent the recurrence of very negative situations - as we have seen in Italy - such as the spread of AIDS, imprisonment, social marginalization and an increase in petty crime and prostitution. We therefore need to take account of the complex nature of the drugs problem and of the risks associated with it, as well as the fundamental importance of a broad range of public health and social measures essential to the protection of health and quality of life. Eisma Mr President, the Liberal Group also welcomes the results obtained in the conciliation committee, and we should like to congratulate Mr Burtone on his hard work. However, we realize, as I hope Mrs Oomen does too, that this is not about combating drug trafficking, but about public health, and as I see it the whole question of drug dependence belongs fairly and squarely in the public health domain. Drug addicts are primarily people with a health problem rather than criminals to be prosecuted, and the emphasis should therefore be on prevention and help rather than repression. Repression, I think we should all agree, needs to be targeted instead on drug trafficking and organized crime. I am therefore delighted that the final text produced by the committee offers scope for a pragmatic and humane approach which focuses on prevention and risk-limitation. I also welcome the fact that the report recognizes the importance of cooperation with NGOs and social welfare organizations, since these are the bodies which know what the day-to-day problems are and can take action where it is needed. Finally, the Public Health Council may finally be making some progress, but I regret to say that other measures are now rearing their ugly heads, such as the joint action under the third pillar recently proposed by the French, which is based entirely on repression and totally ignores the importance of a humane and pragmatic approach. We hope that a solution can be found to this issue, on which opinions are still deeply divided between France and the Netherlands in particular, for the benefit of all drug addicts. Tamino Mr President, on behalf of the Greens, I regret that the text approved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection was scaled down during the conciliation process. Once again we have seen differences in the positions of the Council and the European Parliament. Nevertheless, it must be noted that some significant progress has been made as regards both the concept of prevention and the means of tackling the problem of drug dependence. I refer in particular to the stress on the fact that the patient is not a criminal, that, in reality, the prison environment is often a place where the risk of drug dependence develops and that the programme must cover all types of drug, without distinction. However, I should like to point out that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis, which causes less damage and fewer social problems. We also need to assess which strategies are capable of saving human lives; in our view, for instance, examples of this are the controlled administration of drugs and, more generally, the decriminalization of drug use. Cooperation with NGOs and dialogue with young people are also important. For those reasons, I should like to thank those honourable Members who formed part of the Conciliation Committee for their work and to express the hope that this is the starting-point for a new policy on combating drug dependence. Hory Mr President, I should like to inform Mr Burtone of the disappointment felt by the radical antiprohibitionists in this Parliament. We cannot, like him, congratulate ourselves on the fact that the conciliation position has already, between the first and second readings, weakened our position. Between those two readings we have lost everything relating to policy on reducing risks. We have lost everything relating to freedom in the provision of therapy for drug addicts, and we have also, above all, lost the overall negative verdict that had been given on the policy of suppression and prohibition. At this point I cannot avoid drawing your attention to the fact that decades of prohibition have resulted in the everincreasing use of drugs, a constant improvement in the profits of organized crime, the growth of petty and more serious crimes linked to the need to finance the drug habit, and finally, on the pretext of prohibition, which involves secrecy, the spread of AIDS. Those are the results of a policy of prohibition, and we have managed to lose them between the first and second readings. That is the position we are in today. We can share most of the excellent intentions of Mr Burtone, but I am afraid that they will remain mere empty words as long as we do not fundamentally question the logic of the prohibition policy. Finally, Mr President, I should like in a moment to refer to the Rules of Procedure regarding the proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Vanhecke Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking here about a sum of around ECU 27 or 29 million - no one knows the exact figure, but it is, at any rate, more than BFR 1 billion. This may seem like peanuts in European terms, but it is certainly not peanuts for the taxpayers who are expected to pay every penny of this and all the other billions our budget goes through. And, quite honestly, I cannot say that I expect all this taxpayers' money to be spent wisely and responsibly. My main objection is that all the measures referred to in this report - which I regret to say offers no support for the principle of the traditional family unit and fails even to mention the unfortunate, but nevertheless clear link between drug trafficking and mass immigration - could actually be organized much more efficiently by the Member States. The European Union does have a role to play in the fight against drugs, but not as some kind of large-scale needle exchange service. On the contrary, it should be promoting cooperation between the various police forces against international drugs crime and imposing strict checks at our internal and external borders. But as we know, the European Union is unable or unwilling to play this role, and is even doing the opposite. Checks at the internal borders are being abolished and those that remain are condemned by the Euro-fanatics as some sort of crime against humanity. I would also point out that the Netherlands is shortly to take over the presidency of the Union, and everyone knows the sinister meaning which the word 'coffee-shop' now has in that country. So I am very sceptical, to put it mildly, about these results from the Conciliation Committee, and I think we should reject the report as it now stands. Heinisch Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as competition intensifies and, at the same time, young people perceive that they have less and less chance of sharing in society's prosperity, they try to escape from the pressures which they face as individuals by taking drugs. Drugs become a comfort and a means of escape from reality. The Irish presidency has made drugs policy in the EU a priority. I welcome the action programme and the specific recommendations. Increasingly, what we are seeing, as opposed to heroin users, are people with multiple drug addictions. This means that different kinds of help must be provided for them. But it also means that cooperation between everyone involved in caring for drug addicts is essential. It is also important to provide comprehensive information, particularly in our schools. Dialogue with children at risk, and their parents - especially as early as the pre-school years - is a very important aspect of prevention. Drug abuse, drug dealing and the associated crime to which it leads have a destructive effect on society. The European Union must therefore continue to concern itself with combating these problems. There must be room for an open debate on drugs as part of federal and national politics, without any taboos. We must encourage the harmonization of legislation in the Member States. The Dutch presidency is facing intense pressure from many EU countries, and I hope that the Netherlands, with its policy of tolerance, will be prepared to endorse more stringent interpretations in the area of drugs policy. As a practising pharmacist, I oppose any attempt to make hashish available over the chemist's counter. To do so would be to put drugs on a par with medicinal products, and I believe that would be extremely dangerous. As far as I am concerned, there can be no question about the illegality of drugs. The primary concern of any drugs policy must be to help those who are addicted - to offer therapy. But prevention, using new methods and approaches, is and remains our first task. This makes demands on all those who hold positions of responsibility in society, especially in the areas of education and child care. Living out an example is the most effective method of prevention. Crowley Mr President, in conjunction with the other speakers, I wish to congratulate Mr Burtone on the tremendous work he has done on this report. However, there are some basic differences of opinion which must be emphasized, the importance of which should not be underestimated. First of all, the only way we are going to solve the whole question of drug addiction and the health problems it poses is by reducing demand totally. How best can we achieve those aims? The best and most strategic way is by educating people with regard to the dangers and risks of drug use. I hope that all Member States would start at the very earliest stages - maybe when children are eight or nine years of age - and give them more education at school, to tell them of the dangers there are out there. Nor can we underestimate the fundamental role of the family as educators. Parents and guardians must be given access to information in order to be able to recognize the danger signs, and also to be able to tell their own children what they should be doing. Finally, we should never underestimate the role of individual responsibility. Where I have a fundamental problem with this report is in its classification of all addicts as people who are ill rather than criminals. It is generally known that in addition to using criminality to feed their own habit, addicts actually partake in illegal and criminal acts as well. Their addiction cannot be used to exonerate them from responsibility for those criminal acts. Amadeo Mr President, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have at last reached a degree of understanding which has resulted in approval of the programme of Community action on drug dependence. Although, in our view, families and schools have a priority role to play, based on an effective campaign of prevention, the programme must be capable of encompassing all drugs, whether soft or hard, and broadening its scope to cover more risk groups. Against the background of this debate, we have the recent outburst from the leader of the governing coalition in Italy who, perhaps trying to hold out too leafy an olive branch, spoke of liberalizing hallucinogenic drugs. I should like to say that, if such issues as legalization of drugs, homosexuality and its legal status, genetic engineering and abortion have provoked a clash in today's society, this is certainly not a clash between freedom on the one hand and obscurantism on the other, but between two different perceptions of freedom and society. Freedom does not mean that anyone can do anything they like, it is not the result of ethical indifference; on the contrary, it is the consequence of religion and moral conscience. It is therefore not just a matter of individual will. How do we answer the following questions? Is it good to have a society where narcotic substances, including heroin, are in free, more or less legalized, circulation? Is it right to consent to State-sponsored 'trips' ? Is it positive thing to increase young people's awareness? These questions need to be debated at a cultural level and cannot be used as or turned into mere political propaganda. Blokland Mr President, the joint text of the Council and Parliament decision has been finalized. The rapporteur has worked very hard and a compromise has been reached. The politically sensitive amendments designed to impose a permissive drugs policy or a policy of damage-limitation on the Member States have been toned down, I am glad to say. We in the Netherlands now have considerable experience of such a policy, and though the percentage of hard drug users in the Netherlands is not high in international terms, that is not to say that a liberal policy is the right one. When we talk about the percentage of drug addicts in the population, there are countless social factors involved, not just the question of how easy it is to obtain soft drugs. The text adopted by the Conciliation Committee still contains a number of sensitive points, such as the needle exchange projects and the use of methadone substitution therapy. These could form part of an integral approach to addiction, provided they are strictly regulated. Fortunately, they are only mentioned in connection with evaluation studies rather than as specific policy measures, so we feel we can still support them, and they also fall within the scope provided for by Article 129 of the Treaty. The increase in the number of projects in the annex and the broad definition given to the term 'prevention' have made the programme very extensive, and the limited funding available for the programme leaves the Member States with no choice but to pick and choose among the projects listed. Each Member State must now fix its own priorities, and this could easily undermine the effectiveness of the entire programme, which would be a great pity. Sichrovsky On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I should like to support the position of the Conciliation Committee. We believe, however, that certain matters have been mentioned which merit further discussion. For example, we would agree with our colleagues in the Green Group in the European Parliament that the extent of alcohol addiction is widely underestimated. It is actually the case in some countries that young people can buy an alcoholic drink more cheaply than a non-alcoholic one. Another problem is the definition of drug addicts as patients. Much as this should be encouraged, there is also a need here to work out new methods that will allow these patients to be treated. In our experience, the methods which medicine currently has to offer are not capable of bringing an addict back to health. The definition alone will not enable us to provide appropriate treatment for the patients - as opposed to criminals - whom we now have to deal with. We also foresee a difficulty in delegating the provision of information to schools and universities, and in the growing problem of social stratification in Europe. We know from experience that people in the higher social strata have access to better schools, whereas the schools which poorer people attend are not so good. In the schools that are attended by the poorer sections of the population, it is often quite impossible to practise prevention or to make documentation and information available. Finally, there is also the question of closer cooperation with the countries where drugs are produced. Merely sending money to these countries will not suffice. Programmes for helping them to make the transition to other products will have to be considered. Monti Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, drugs are a serious concern to all of us European citizens. The talks, discussions and exchanges which have accompanied the long process of adopting this programme have been fruitful and have allowed us to make positive improvements to the Community machinery for the prevention of drug dependence. We are convinced that the programme is credible and takes account of the different approaches adopted in the various Member States. It is not our aim to align ourselves with one side or the other, ideologically or morally, or to define a single approach as to what is meant by drugs and prevention of drug dependence and what policies should be adopted in this area. Our purpose is rather to stress the complexity of the problems of drug abuse and to allow professional, scientific and technical discussion to take place on the various ways and means of tackling the problem. On behalf of the Commission and my colleague, Commissioner Flynn, I should like to thank the European Parliament for the support it has given this programme and, in particular, Mr Burtone, the rapporteur, for his work on this matter. I should also like to add a few words about the conciliation procedure. Once again, all the Institutions have played a full part in dealing with particularly important issues. The Commission would like to mention two points in particular: the first relates to the participation of the various institutions and organizations working to reduce demand for drugs, which could take part in the programme's activities. I would stress that, under Article 5(2)(f) of the Decision, the Commission will propose cooperation methods for the implementation of the programme involving public and private bodies and non-governmental organizations, including voluntary organizations and community groups involved in therapy or social welfare. As regards the other programmes in the public health sector, the Commission will naturally favour cooperation among working groups from various Member States, with particular regard to the activities of the European networks assisting the public in drug prevention. The second point I should like to stress, Mr President, relates to communicating information on the implementation of the programme to the European Parliament. The interinstitutional modus vivendi as regards measures for the implementation of acts adopted according to the procedure laid down in Article 189b of the EC Treaty, as in the case of this programme, forms the basis for providing Parliament with the information required. Moreover, as regards the terms of Article 5(4) of the Decision, which provides that the Commission is to communicate to the committee established under that article all decisions adopted in relation to individual projects, the Commission undertakes to communicate this information to the European Parliament annually. De Coene Mr President, there is something I should like to point out here, since Mrs Oomen-Ruijten has twice now claimed in this debate that I have put my name to a motion for a resolution on legalizing drugs. I know which resolution she means, but I would point out that I have not signed it, and I would ask people to check their facts before they refer to me by name in this way. Burtone Mr President, I should like to make a brief statement in order to fulfil a personal, but also an institutional, duty and because I wish to conduct myself properly towards the European Parliament - something I have always done while acting as rapporteur. I venture to point out to my colleague, Mr Dell'Alba, that had he paid more attention to what I said, he would not have said something that could become a source of controversy and maybe already has. This evening, in this very Chamber, I referred to a process, to a debate, to decisions made by the House in the recent past. Conscientious Member that he is, Mr Dell'Alba will surely recall that, by means of an amendment, some honourable Members tabled a proposal to legalize certain drugs - a proposal that was rejected by a vote of this House in no uncertain terms. I would add that all of this cannot be included in the report simply because the amendment I have mentioned was rejected. I leave you to draw your own conclusions. Hory Mr President, Mr De Coene denies having signed a proposal for a recommendation which I myself have signed. This is the proposal referred to by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, and I should like to bring it up again now. I refer to our Rules of Procedure, and in particular Rule 46, which allows a certain number of Members to sign proposals for recommendations, which are then referred to the committee responsible, without the House being informed about them. For the time being, however, the proposal for a recommendation in question is an official document of the European Parliament, which is in unrestricted circulation within the European Parliament, and I cannot accept, either, that Mrs Oomen-Ruijten should caricature the position of those who have signed that proposal for a recommendation, by saying that we wanted to establish a liberal position that would allow drug users to have a free choice among all the drugs available. That is not true. As far as I am concerned, the liberalization of drug use and the current suppression of drug use in my country constitute two dogmatic positions that are perfectly symmetrical. The position that I am defending is one of pragmatic reasoning, and consists of controlled legalization and freedom to prescribe therapy. Mr President, I should just like to draw your attention to one particular point, which is a personal one. I hope that it was due to an interpreting error, at least into French, that I heard Mrs Oomen-Ruijten say that the position defended by her colleagues was stupid, because I do think that we should have the courtesy to avoid describing in such a way the various positions that Members defend, even though I admit that one could say a lot about the relevance, or even the intelligence, of some of them. We shall have to discuss this proposal for a recommendation, and so I hope that until then Mrs Oomen-Ruijten will keep her arguments to a minimum, and we shall deal with them in full. Oomen-Ruijten Mr President, to Mr Hory, who is a true liberal, I would say that his policy is bound to mean that many young children will start taking drugs, and I am not in favour of that. I apologize to Mr De Coene for mentioning him by name, though I have to say that this simply makes us even, because he wrongly mentioned my name in a number of Dutch newspaper articles. Nevertheless, I offer my apologies. President The debate is closed. The vote will be taken tomorrow at noon. Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs President The next item is the report (A4-0406/96) by the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending Directive 79/112/EEC on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (C4-0590/95-00/0380(COD) (rapporteur: Mr Schnellhardt). Schnellhardt Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the conciliation procedure on the directive amending Directive 79/112/EEC on the labelling of foodstuffs was concluded, following trialogue meetings, on 16 October, and that was the end of the process. In all, five of Parliament's amendments were at odds with the Council's position, and therefore had to be discussed. As far as Parliament is concerned and, I hope, as far as consumers and food producers are concerned, the outcome is very satisfactory. Let me mention briefly the individual amendments. In the case of Amendment No 18, Parliament's main proposals were accepted without difficulty; it was only where the sales name of the producer country was used that the Council wished to have additional descriptive information included in direct proximity to the sales name. The European Parliament delegation could not understand this requirement. The solution that was reached does not conflict with the European Court of Justice judgment in the 'sauce béarnaise ' case, but allows the possibility of including further information. However, such information will only be permitted where the other provisions of the directive are not sufficient to provide consumers with correct information. Among the other provisions is Article 6, on the listing of ingredients. This meets the concern of the European Parliament that a consumer buying products with the manufacturer's label should be given an adequate degree of security by having a broad range of information, without at the same time permitting a mass of confusing, onesided detail which has no place in the
{'language': 'en'}