Approval of the Minutes President The Minutes of yesterday's sitting have been distributed. Are there any comments? Kellett-Bowman Mr President, yesterday, in one of his rare speeches, Mr Tomlinson referred to the sovereignty of the House in coming to decisions. Early this year, when voting on the transit inquiry report, the House decided that the follow-up should go to the Committee on Budgetary Control. In yesterday's Minutes, apparently, we approved a report on telematics in transport - which is all part of the transit system - going to the Committee on Transport and Tourism. However in a document circulated by Distribution yesterday called 'Activities' , it says that the Commission's action plan for the new transit in Europe customs policy should go to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy. Is the House sovereign or not? President We will check it and take the necessary measures. Angelilli Mr President, I have asked for the floor on a point of personal explanation. Last Monday, when the session opened, Mr Ford spoke on a very serious matter, the fact that, since the last session here in Strasbourg, someone had torn down a poster he had put up on his office door commemorating the resistance of the German people against Hitler. But Mr Ford then made comments which I consider decidedly unfortunate and out of place: he said he was not surprised that such acts of political vandalism could occur in this Parliament since it includes people like Roberta Angelilli, that is myself, whom he blames for alleged neo-Nazi activities, organizations and initiatives in Italy. Frankly I have no idea what inspired those accusations, insinuations and associations of ideas. Perhaps Mr Ford, a leading light of this Parliament, is actually prepared to use the methods of the basest and most defamatory political demagoguery, born of the worst intolerance, to gain more applause from the House. Well, I just want to say one thing: at least in Italy, making unfounded insinuations is in fact a criminal act, and it is called defamation. I therefore invite Mr Ford to inform himself better before making unfounded insinuations, and in any case I invite the President, or whoever is responsible, to investigate the incident fully. Personally I intend to take some kind of action, possibly even legal action, to shed light on this event. President Mrs Angelilli, I must point out a couple of things to you. First of all, you must reply to any personal remarks or comments immediately following the remarks or on the same day. Secondly, all Members are free to speak in plenary session and neither the President nor any other authority can stop them. That, as you know, is what is meant by parliamentary immunity for words used within the Chamber. Nobody can censure another Member nor can they take legal action either in Italy or any other country over something said in this Chamber. That is why, if someone says something that is erroneous you must reply at once, in order to clear up a misunderstanding or put the facts right, as you are trying to do today. Mr Ford, you have the floor. However, this is not the time to continue a debate on this. But you referred to Mr Ford. Please could I ask you to be brief as we have far more important issues on the agenda. Ford Mr President, Mrs Angelilli made comments on what I said on Monday. It was on the basis of a press report in the United Kingdom. I will provide her with a copy of the press report on what she was alleged to have done. Obviously I expect her to take legal action and, if she does not, one can only draw the appropriate conclusions. Antony Mr President, I should also like to speak on a personal remark. I was not there on Monday but I cannot allow Mr Ford to get away with what he said. He is always provocative and he once again confused issues and scandalously accused me of racism. I should like to tell Mr Ford that I know France and the racism that my assistant has been victim of. Mr Stéphane Durbeck, my assistant, is a black West Indian and he has been beaten up and called a 'genetic freak' , just because he does me the honour of accompanying me in all my activities. The Vietnamese godchildren whom I am bringing up have been attacked and hurt just because they are my godchildren, and I treat them like my other children. I have also helped out some three thousand Lebanese orphans over the years and they too have been attacked and the victims of vendettas, just because they are Christians. If there is any racism here, it is Mr Ford's, whose thought-masters have murdered 200 million people in the world, because they were peasants, middle class or Christians. We are not impressed by Mr Ford's Stalinist accusations! Mr Ford, you are a provocateur! (Mixed reactions) President Mr Antony, please allow me to remind you of the rules on personal matters. Speakers can only express their views on the basis of the debate. They may only refute remarks made during the debate concerning them personally, e.g. opinions attributed to them and/or rectify their, own declarations. You rectified the remarks concerning you, but it is not the time to open a debate that has nothing to do with them, or to start attacking someone else. I can no longer accept speeches like that. (The Minutes were adopted) Green Mr President, I would like to change the subject. I, as you know, argued very forcibly on Monday at the setting of the agenda for an extension of the deadline for the IGC amendments. I understand a superhuman effort was made by your services and I think it is right that we acknowledge that here today; people worked all through the night to ensure that we could vote today. Of course we realize that there may be some frustrations and irritations in the vote and we will look sympathetically on any errors, but we do, and we should, pay tribute to the services and thank them for their work. (Applause ) President Thank you Mrs Green, you are quite right because people have worked very hard all night and again from 8 o'clock this morning to make the vote possible. I think everyone will be understanding about any possible errors and I ask for everyone's cooperation so that we can have a smooth vote on this crucial issue. We understand that it is absolutely exceptional, we cannot do this every session. This is just for one occasion and only one occasion. Preparation for the European Council of 16/17 June 1997 President The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on the preparatory work for the meeting of the European Council on 16/17 June 1997 in Amsterdam, including the Commission's action plan for the internal market. You have the floor, Mr Mierlo, President-in-Office of the Council. Van Mierlo Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honour - it is also a duty but carrying out a duty can also be a genuine honour - to give you details of the agenda of the European Summit to be held in Amsterdam at the beginning of next week. As you all know, this Summit is taking place against a fairly troubled background in respect of the euro and because of new elections. The Summit will definitely feel the effects of that. However - and I shall probably come back to this later in answer to your questions - I firmly believe that it is highly likely that this Summit can be a success despite these circumstances. I shall come back to this. Of course, the European Council coincides with the closure of the IGC negotiations. Other crucial issues are on the agenda such as employment, EMU, the action plan to fight organized crime and the action plan for the internal market. Given this agenda, the debate on foreign affairs, in particular current foreign policy question, will be limited to the main thrust. I am thinking in particular of the Middle East peace process, the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the peace process in former Yugoslavia. These points are officially on the agenda but the Summit risks forcing us to look at them and to tackle them in an extremely summary way because of the restraints imposed. I shall begin by taking a very brief look at the questions of employment and EMU before examining in more detail the conclusion of the IGC negotiations. Promoting employment has been and still is of capital importance. Initially, the IGC paid special attention to this subject. I shall come back to this in a few moments. The next European summit will look at the regular six-monthly report by the Social Affairs Council, the ECOFIN Council and the Commission on the employment situation within the European Union. The Commission will also report on progress on the pact of confidence for employment. The Committee on the Employment and Labour Market has been successfully launched under the aegis of the Dutch Presidency. This committee is working in particular in conjunction with the Economic Policy Committee employment indicators making possible to gauge progress vis-à-vis the Essen priorities. In order to ensure that EMU is launched on time, it has been agreed that the European Council would take a series of decisions. In this respect, we must now ask whether decisions not essential for implementation of EMU will be taken. I shall probably come back to this in more detail when giving my second reply. The aim of this was to harmonize the stability pact. Secondly, a resolution established the exchange mechanism between the head group of countries and the Member States which will not be taking part in euro in 1999. Thirdly, the European Council is invited to respond to the agreement reached in the ECOFIN Council on the euro's legal status. Finally, the European currency project will be presented in Amsterdam. It is possible that we might deal with all of these questions, which in themselves should not require very much time, given that the political agreements have already been reached, but there is no certainty of this. Yesterday, we visited President Chirac and the new French Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Jospin, and they both assured us that everything had been done to reconcile the fact that the stability pact cannot be withdrawn - something which the new government is also against - but on the other hand, the new government has noted an imperfection, namely that the question of employment has not been sufficiently taken into account. This problem will be resolved by adding a sort of addendum. This is not the exclusive wish of the French government: many Member States share this opinion and we are currently working on this issue. The outcome of this work will depend to some extent on the possibility of completing this set of measures. In this respect, it is not improbable to envisage the following scenario: we decide to adopt the measures as a whole but we are not going to divide them up. That is the current state of this issue. Now let us turn to the main subject: revision of the Maastricht Treaty. Since the Dublin European Council, the Presidency has done everything to complete the draft Treaty texts, which has turned out to be a very complicated task. The Irish Presidency's proposal had many qualities, especially that of defining a framework - an extremely important fact - but when it came to some of the main political problems, it nevertheless revealed a number of gaps. Recent debates have been dedicated to these issues and those debates are still going on. I should now like to thank the European Parliament for its constructive contribution to this process. The prospects which now loom before us are that of a European Union whose aim is to serve the ordinary peoples. It is a question of their security, their prosperity, their health and their mobility. The European Union must also prepare institutionally to welcome new Member States. I am now going to look at some of the specific subjects of the IGC. I shall begin by the area of freedom, security and justice. Negotiations indicate that the IGC will result in a strengthening of the principles of the democratic rule of law and fundamental rights within the European Union. Legal controls of European Union's policy in terms of fundamental rights as established in the European Convention on Human Rights will be strengthened. Furthermore, the IGC is determined to include in the Treaty a provision of non-discrimination in the broadest sense. The decision to favour the free movement of persons is of capital importance. From this viewpoint, the proposal aimed at integrating the Schengen 'acquis' into the European Union is currently being studied. Furthermore, the democratic and legal legitimacy of Schengen cooperation might also be improved by copying the institutional framework of the European Union, in particular the European Parliament, the Commission and the Court of Justice. Now I am coming to the European Union and the public. Let us mention, first of all, the social aspect which has been paid particular attention during the IGC. Integration of the Social Charter into the Treaty is now being called for unanimously. We should also refer to the insertion of a new chapter on employment. Employment policy is still a priority responsibility of the Member States themselves but the Union can play a role, acting as a stimulus in this respect by strengthening, for example, coordination and exchanges of experiences between the Member States. Considerable effort has been put into improving the quality and openness of administration within the European Union. I am satisfied to note the broad support given to a proposal allowing the public to gain access to documents issued by the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Another important aspect of the IGC is achieving a common foreign and security policy. The possible means of achieving this are a majority decision process and the concept of constructive abstention. I am not aware of the exact arrangements proposed, as for other points, but you can read in the draft documents that there will possibly be an opportunity for responding to the wish of all Member States to free themselves of the straightjacket of the absolute right of veto which has so often dominated the second pillar. The construction developed in this framework consists in the possibility of reaching a fundamental decision taken by consensus by the European Council, stipulating a strategy for one country, one region or one given question. This fundamental decision is being worked out in the General Council in order to obtain a well drafted and well thought-out document - which is not always the case of European Councils - to be presented at the European Council. The resolutions contained in the fundamental resolution can then be adopted by qualified majority within the General Council. Again there is a possibility for a given Member State to refer to the resolution which may be harmful to one of its main national interests. In order to avoid this approach being taken too often, a procedure has been worked out according to which two-thirds of the Council may appeal to the European Council in order to issue a final judgment in respect of an appeal which it regards as wrongful. You might retort that this system is nonetheless relatively complex. That is true but the European Union as a whole is a complicated structure and there is no consensus on this type of question. Even so, this measure should lead to two results. On the one hand, no Member State can be marginalized by the other Member States when it feels that there really is a significant national interest at stake. On the other hand, the advantage of the complexity of the procedure lies in the need to present serious arguments in order to avoid ridicule. In other words, it will be necessary to prove twice or three times to colleagues that the concept of national interest is being applied in absolute honesty. We know all the weaknesses of the procedures but that is not the problem concerning us. We have yet to come across a similar situation. On this point, let us emphasize that the Union is making effective progress and many of you - as well as many of the Member States - hope that we are, in this way, going to achieve a more effective way of introducing qualified majority voting. I think that there is a certain benefit in this given that, two years ago, when we began these activities, such a regulation was ruled out. We can now, therefore, conclude that our efforts have paid off and the prospects are promising. As for financing the CFSP activities, you have certainly found out about the intention to conclude an interinstitutional agreement on this subject between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. This means that the European Parliament's existing budgetary powers on this point will be guaranteed whatever happens. I know that some of you disapprove of this, rightly, and I should tell you at once that I fully expect to be snowed under with your remarks - but I should tell you that, in the Council, there was a feeling of getting bogged down and a feeling that the procedures were holding things up far too much. The real intention - and to recall what the initial concepts were - was to turn everything into compulsory expenditure. Thanks to an excellent cooperation with your President, who deserves our congratulations, we reached an inter-institutional agreement which will enable you to control all foreign expenditure. It is less than before but far more than the Council originally had any intention of giving you. It is, at this point in time, difficult to predict how integration of WEU into the European Union is going to take place. We have already gone down much of the way towards this and know what the situation is. A small group of countries wants to limit this to cooperation between the two institutions and a much larger group, eight Member States, would like a total merger. These points of view are absolutely unreconcilable in that one group would like to convince the other to adopt its position. The Presidency's proposal takes this into account and we hope that it will reach a consensus. It will not be easy at all and everyone will have to make an effort but it is possible. The Summit will decide the outcome, given that this is one of the major issues at stake. Finally, as for the European Union's external economic policy, I should like to tell you of our efforts aimed at reaching a situation where the Union adopts a common position in terms of services and intellectual property. Negotiations are still going on and I am unable to tell you what progress we have made but we are doing our best to guarantee a fruitful outcome one way or another. Now I am coming to another key point: institutional questions. The debate has intensified especially since the informal European Council in Noordwijk. From the political point of view this is the most complicated point. In each country the question has been the subject of a political debate between government and parliament which means that it is practically impossible to find a solution which is going to satisfy everyone. We must take measures. Enlargement will call for a better organisation on our part. The composition and functioning of the Commission have been the subject of a lengthy debate. The strengthening of the position of the President of the Commission has led to growing support. However, adaptation of the number of Commissioners is still a controversial issue. However that may be, if the proposal to strengthen the position of the President of the Commission does succeed it will imply a strengthening of the position of the European Parliament, which intervenes twice in the process of forming the Commission. The first when the Presidentdesignate, appointed by the Council, is presented to you, and you hold talks with him before approving his appointment, and the second when he has taken on the Commissioners, in conjunction with the Member States, and he presents the whole team to you - and you have to give your agreement to that. Unless the process is interrupted, this would mean considerably strengthening the European Parliament's position. Changing the number of commissioners is also one of the main subjects of the debate. The IGC is perfectly aware of the fact that, when the Union undergoes a major enlargement, it will no longer be possible to extrapolate a system which was originally designed for six Member States. We are going to have to work out an exact representation of the new ratios. At bottom, after each enlargement, we simply extrapolate, as if we were just dealing with a different size of the same organisation when, in reality, we also have to deal with structural differences. That is why, at present, we are basing ourselves on the notion that each Member State will retain one commissioner but that at some point in time, when the European Union is extended by a certain degree, the larger Member States are going to have to sacrifice their second commissioner. On the other hand, the weighting of votes will also have to be reviewed as, when we have more than 20 Member States, we are going to have to proceed to a structural reform of the whole of the system. We are going to have to think of the best way of administering the Community that we are now developing but we have not yet had time to think about that. We are not going to have more than 20 members that quickly! So we are going to have to make the most of the delay. We are going to have to take more time, set up a working group and reorganize the administration of the European Community. This idea, which is currently being examined, has been given a favourable welcome. I do know, however, that 'the devil is in the detail' , because that really is what it is about: how to revise the weighting of votes, etc. We have not yet reached a decision but we are on the right road. We have seen that there is a great deal of sympathy for the arguments behind this reasoning, which envisages a structural reform without waiting for enlargement before possibly painful decisions are taken, so we also are taking action and we are demanding the applicant countries to do so. The last point to which I would like to draw your attention is flexibility. In the light of the enlargement of the European Union and the heterogeneity which is going to result from it, there are many people who seem to be convinced of the necessity to extend the possibilities of strengthening cooperation. At this level, the condition is the guarantee of the Union's unity. Flexibility seems above all to offer opportunities within the JAI pillar, such that its intergovernmental character is preserved. We must pay particular attention to the EC pillar. That is what has also been expressed in the text which we are now examining. At present, the final debate must take place on the exact system to be adopted, whether we use a negative list, which is the more probable outcome, or present general definitions to which the flexibility of the first pillar must respond. Come what may, considerable guarantees are necessary and they are being introduced in the first pillar. The debate will therefore concentrate on the degree of precision. And now the position of the European Parliament. I know, ladies and gentlemen, that I never match up to your expectations on this score. I can nevertheless tell you that on a certain number of points results have been registered in the process of strengthening the European Parliament's position which has been pursued by the Presidency. I am thinking in particular of the simplification of the codecision procedure, which strengthens the effectiveness and democratic character of the decision-making process. Without forgetting the introduction of the codecision procedure where the cooperation procedure still applies. In my view this change is a vital strengthening of the European Parliament's position and I have already mentioned your growing influence on the formation of the Commission. Following this very comprehensive consideration of the IGC, you are now aware of the fact that this Presidency is quite determined to make sure that the Amsterdam negotiations will be a success. The Presidency has done all it can to enable that to take place and is continuing its efforts, not because we absolutely want to have the name of our capital city attached to the Treaty - although, of course, that would be nice for Amsterdamers, but that is not the reason - but because it is time (Noise and laughter) time for making the Union dynamic and more effective, to arm it for the next enlargement and to bring it closer to the ordinary people. Just a few more words on this last point. This visibility for ordinary citizens is of capital interest. Because that is what it is all about. Let us not confuse the issue. I explained this recently elsewhere. At present, we are just building the kitchen. The ordinary citizen is interested in particular in the dishes that are going to come out of it. It is all very well to have a new kitchen, but the most important is the dishes which are prepared in it. It is employment, the environment, that type of issue. It is quite foolish to think that ordinary people will really be concerned about the way in which we build the kitchen. After all, it is very complex. When I go into a garage, I understand absolutely nothing about repair techniques, all I want is for my car to be repaired, I want it to be roadworthy and I want to have confidence in the mechanic. (Applause and laughter) Therefore, I would like you to put things in perspective. We must not and cannot explain absolutely every detail of our work. If the outcome is pleasing, that is what counts. Mr President, public acceptance of the new Treaty will depend partly on you. The Presidency is putting much hope in other important questions. I already referred to EMU, employment, the internal market and the fight against crime. I hope that we are going to make substantial progress in Amsterdam. The Presidency hopes that, at the end of the month, it will be able to announce to you the positive, concrete results of the Amsterdam meeting. (Applause) President Thank you very much, Mr President-in-Office of the Council. Mr Santer, President of the European Commission, you have the floor. Santer Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in less than a week's time, the Amsterdam European Council will have to overcome the final obstacles to the reform of the treaty. We shall then see whether the IGC has met its triple challenge: to narrow the gap between the European project and the citizens, find the resources to exist in the international arena and review the institutions in order to bring about enlargement in good conditions. Four successive presidencies have worked on this project in turn. The time has come to conclude. Further waiting at best would change nothing and at worst would lead to a move backwards. The current text drafted by the Dutch Presidency is a point of balance and, I hope, a meeting-point too. I would have preferred more boldness here and there but I do gauge the difficulty of marrying ambition and realism and I think that the Dutch Presidency team has largely succeeded in meeting the challenge. If I remain concerned today, it is because there are too many attempts to undo, at the last minute, such patiently completed work. I would like to tell all of those who, concerned at the gap between politics and ordinary people, are tempted to take a thousand precautions: ' Be daring! Because in Europe there are more people dissatisfied with our slowness than hostile to our progress towards integration' . I also call on the heads of State and Government to resist the temptation to take advantage of the final home sprint to settle, through protocols and various amendments, problems that are ill-suited to constitutional improvisations. I would rather expect them to take advantage of the final negotiations to constitute a coherent and ambitious institutional package. It is on that score that the shape of a final solution is still vague, even though a good outcome is vital. I repeat what I have often said: an ill-prepared enlargement would turn into a nightmare what I think in reality is a historic chance for Europe. Mr President, a few remarks about the key points of the negotiation and the 'Union for citizens' . The new treaty offers the chance to create a genuine area of freedom, security and justice. In this area, the accomplished work is remarkable and the text of this Presidency ambitious. The citizens expect no less, tired at seeing how the current system is deficient and that no convention - yes, no convention - has come into effect. We can only welcome the broad communitarization envisaged for the third pillar. After a three-year transitional period, we should now switch to qualified majority voting and the Commission's exclusive right of initiative. But we should go to the conclusion of Community logic, i.e. introduce the codecision procedure. (Applause) As for criminal and police cooperation, it is legitimate at this stage to stay at intergovernmental level, provided that the effectiveness and democratic nature of that cooperation is increased. Integration into the treaty of the Schengen 'acquis' is a good thing. The share-out between the pillars must be clear if the Union's action is to be as coherent as possible in areas linked to the free movement of persons. Certain Member States have specific difficulties over this, I recognize. Let us find specific solutions for them, but not at the cost of blocking real progress as a whole. It is now a fact that the treaty will include a chapter on employment. Of course, it cannot be expected that this measure would directly reduce unemployment - I shall come back to the broader problem of employment later - but this chapter is vital for at least two reasons. Firstly, because it shows that the endemic nature of unemployment has brought some of the concerns to the heart of the European project, along with the hopes of Europeans. Secondly, because the provisions included in that chapter are useful ones. Once our States have set as an aim a broad convergence of their economic policies, they also need a coherent and coordinated employment strategy. For that we must set up consultative arrangements and the possibility to take incentive measures. That is what the Dutch Presidency's draft text proposes. Integration of the social protocol into the treaty will make it possible to restore unity and coherence to social policy. But we must seize the opportunity offered to us to improve it and strengthen its provisions, or we shall run the risk of replacing an already difficult action for fourteen countries with an impossible one for fifteen. We must also strengthen consumer health production to allay people's concerns. Unlike 1992, nobody now contests the Commission's proposals. They will rightly make it possible to involve the European Parliament fully in the adoption of measures aimed at by Article 129, extended to the veterinary and plant health areas. (Applause) We, i.e. the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission must then show that we can act in the interest of consumers, on the basis of the arrangements we have had made available. Mr President, the second main aim of the IGC can be summed up in five words: existing in the international arena. There is a time to regret our collective powerlessness, but there is also a time to react and I should like Amsterdam to be the opportunity for a quantum leap in political will. First of all concerning CFSP proper. The arrangements proposed by the Presidency are an important step forward. They provide for qualified majority voting for implementing strategic decisions taken at European Council level. The restrictive possibility of referring to national interest (in exceptional cases) - I prefer to speak of security interests, as it happens - is a price to pay for this advance. The new troika, comprising the Presidency, the Commission and the Secretary General of CFSP, is a promising tool in that it brings together all aspects of external policy and combines periodic renewal with continuity. In my view, it should play a coordinating rule and act as an agent of coherence throughout the process, by relying on the analysis cell. I also welcome the agreement on the funding of CFSP. But apart from the instruments, we must also have genuine political will and use it effectively to develop a common policy. One final word on CFSP, ladies and gentlemen, I do not see how Europe can claim to become a major actor without a military role. That means that it should set a deadline for integrating the WEU into the European Union, as six of the Member States have proposed in a joint position. (Applause) In modern life, the economic, financial and monetary factors are playing a growing role in external relations. It is clear that the arrival of the euro will change the situation and lead to a new balance of international financial and monetary relations. Commercially speaking, the Commission is asking for the adaptation of the treaty to current realities. It is a simple position of common sense, common sense that sometimes disappears in the diplomatic jousting and bureaucratic reactions. I say this clearly: refusing to make progress on services and intellectual property, the defence of the Union's interests, the Member States and companies run an acute risk of going backwards. (Applause) Everyone must take their responsibilities. The text proposed by the Dutch Presidency is a progress, since it provides for an extension, albeit limited, of Article 113 to services. But there are delegations which want to water it down or add to it, even in other articles, supplementary conditions, at the risk of emptying this progress of all substance, even ending up in a step backwards compared with the current situation. I shall oppose that. I now come to the institutional questions, which are vital as they condition not only the support of Europeans but also the future of the Union itself, just before its enlargement. The Presidency's text provides, as the Commission has always demanded, for a strengthening of the European Parliament's role as co-legislator. It is a sign of confidence that corresponds to the development of your institution. Only the European Parliament can ensure the democratic controls that the European Union needs at the stage of development that it has reached. We only need to recall the recommendations of the Karlsruhe Constitutional Court to realize that and the Presidency's approach is a real progress since it aims to cover most areas of a mostly legislative character. Furthermore, simplification of the codecision procedure, and the abolition of third reading, will put the two legislative branches on an equal footing. We should resist any last minute attempts to reverse that decision. (Applause) In that context, I think that the time has also come to define an electoral system that brings representatives closer to the voters and a European parliamentarian status. I think that this is a vital factor for strengthening the legitimacy of the Community institutional system. (Applause) As for the functioning of the Council, the vital point is that of extending voting by qualified majority. The Presidency has dealt with this question with the necessary openness, which means inroads into the second and current thirds pillars and a consolidation in Community areas. A further effort could be made to foresee adoption of qualified majority voting on social provisions and some measures in taxation areas, but it has to be said that the Member States' attitudes leave little room for hope over that. It is a shame, because unanimity in a European Union of more than fifteen Member States will only lead to hold-ups and even paralysis. As for the reweighting of votes, the Commission is open to alternative proposals by the Presidency, provided that the final solution does not make decision-taking more difficult and that it opens the way to more qualified majority voting. I finally come to the membership of the Commission. The solution that will be found will probably be not that far removed from the one we proposed for preparing our institution for enlargement. The appointed President will have to be approved by the European Parliament. His or her role will be strengthened, I hope, especially over the appointment of the other Commissioners. As for the number, that has not yet been decided, I think. The Commission continues to believe that a maximum number of Commissioners should be set. As far as we are concerned, we are going to do what we announced for internal reforms and that includes the regrouping of tasks. Mr President, allow me to conclude on the IGC. I told you at the outset that the draft treaty that we are debating today meets, on many points, the expectations set out by the Commission in its opinion of February 1996. Everyone will judge the final outcome by his or her own yardstick. It is the fruit of a lengthy labour. If we can improve it, let us do so, but let us not call into question the level of the project by making last-minute demands that would change the balance already struck. It is not easy to achieve a quality treaty with fifteen Member States. It will be even harder after enlargement. Mr President, if there is a question that concerns all European, it is that of employment. The people of Europe expect the Union to offer answers to their main concern. The inclusion of an 'employment chapter' in the new treaty will help. But this is urgent. Why not anticipate the implementation of this arrangement? It is not tomorrow that we should learn from each other or work out a coordinated strategy on jobs. It is today. It is today that we must translate the best practices into recommendations. In less than a year, we shall be taking the decision on the entry into the third stage of EMU. The setting up of a stable macro-economic framework has progressed a lot in recent times. Inflation and interest rates are at very low levels, and public deficits have considerably shrunk. At the Amsterdam summit, we shall have to complete the final preparations for the euro, the new exchange rate mechanism, the euro's legal status and the stability and growth pact. The latter is important for guaranteeing sustainable growth. That growth must still be rich in jobs. I welcome the fact that the ECOFIN Council, the day before yesterday, recognized the need for EMU to walk on two legs, monetary and economic. If the monetary aspect is clearly defined, we still need to make an effort to use all the potential of the procedures provided for in Article 103 of the Treaty and aimed at coordinating economic policies. An ambitious monetary policy only makes sense if it goes hand in hand with a policy for higher employment that everyone can understand. (Applause) I should once again like to emphasize that the stability pact, as its new name implies, is also a growth pact, therefore a job-creating pact. All the Member States wanted that. Without calling into question the stability pact's substance and arrangements, it is therefore perfectly possible to highlight employment still further and thereby overcome a concern expressed by one Member State at the latest ECOFIN Council. That concern is and always has been ours. I therefore very much hope that the contacts under way will make it possible to reach full success at Amsterdam, including an agreement on the stability and growth pact. I also hope that the European Council will send a strong signal on the completion of the internal market by the end of the century. The potential of the internal market for competitiveness, growth and employment, is huge. The action plan proposed by the Commission defines four main areas for maximizing that potential: strengthening the effectiveness of the rules, ending distortions to competition or fiscal distortions, ending sectoral obstacles and putting the single market to the service of all citizens. Practical commitments will have to be made and clear deadlines set. Reforming and modernizing labour markets is the third axis of a coherent and integrated strategy for jobs. The role of the social partners is especially important here. I therefore welcome the agreement signed at the end of the last social dialogue summit, last Friday in The Hague, on part-time work. This is an encouraging sign that shows that flexibility and the defence of workers' legitimate aspirations are far from being mutually exclusive. The very positive reaction of the Member States, all the Member States, to the idea of territorial pacts for jobs is another reason for satisfaction. A new form of partnership is being forged on the ground and will be turned into a practicality by the launch of some 90 pacts, which will be hotbeds for job creation. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Amsterdam European Council will mark the future of the European Union. It will, I hope, be a historic meeting and proof of the desire of the fifteen Member States to advance towards unification, while respecting their different identities. A good agreement on the IGC will give Europe a new boost and enable it to meet the EMU deadlines and handle enlargement in good conditions. Let us not miss the opportunity. (Applause) President Thank you very much, Mr Santer. You have the floor, Mrs Green. Green Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking the President-in-Office and the President of the Commission for their frank contributions here this morning. We have been in this process now for over two years and when we began, for my group the essence of it was that we should try and do our best in this Treaty process to reconnect the European Union with its citizens and, secondly, that we should prepare the Union for enlargement. Those were the two fundamental prerequisites of this round of the Intergovernmental Conference. My group believes that the Treaty changes had to be based on four concepts: openness, democracy, clarity and effectiveness, and those were the goals which we believe we have set ourselves for this Treaty round. Many of my colleagues will report in detail on some of the issues Mr Van Mierlo and Mr Santer raised. I want, and was mandated by my group, to give a short political message within days of the Amsterdam Summit so that my group's position is absolutely clear. I delivered this message with great clarity to the congress of my political party, the Party of European Socialists, last week meeting in Malmö and, in particular, to the nine prime ministers within the Council who are from our political family and who were all present in Malmö. The message is that we recognize all the intricacies of the Treaty, but now in a few days' time there are three major areas where my group feels we will be looking to see that more progress should be made. In saying that, we recognize and have been quite clear about the progress that has been made in the Treaty. We are not overly cynical and we see that some changes have been made that are positive and respond to our demands. But we want more and we will be looking to see how much more can even be gained in the final few hours of Amsterdam. Our three priorities are as follows: firstly, we want to see the strengthening of the draft employment title in the Treaty on European Union. It is not good enough and is just pious rhetoric. It must encompass the coordination of economic and employment policies. Secondly, we want to see included in the Treaty fundamental social rights and the strengthening of the social chapter, not just the incorporation of social policy into the Treaty. Thirdly, we believe the enhancement of democracy in Europe is crucial and we are looking at the extension of QMV and codecision across the legislative field in the first pillar. Mr Van Mierlo mentioned the anti-discrimination clause. We welcome that but it is not good enough that it is based on unanimity. It must be based on qualified majority voting and co-decision with this House. Finally, we made clear in our group that what we want to see is that those issues to be transferred, as we hope they will be, from the third to the first pillar must also be subject to QMV and co-decision as Mr Santer has already made clear for the Commission. It cannot be that those issues are transferred without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Only progress in those areas will make sure that the Union is ready to enlarge and will have something serious to say to its people. Martens Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, both of you have offered us a serious and remarkable introduction and I should like to thank you sincerely for that as well as for the work that has been completed. The intergovernmental conference has been working for more than 18 months now. The European Single Act needed only five months of preparation and the Maastricht Treaty one year. We have always adopted a positive attitude. You mentioned, Minister, the troubled circumstances and we are not hiding our heads in the sand for we will have to deal in Amsterdam with a political problem which I shall be tackling as a priority, despite the meeting of six heads of government from the European Popular Party, which took place yesterday in Strasbourg. The French government is insisting that we set up an assessment period for the stability pact and is calling into question the time allowed after the signature in Amsterdam. What is our position? 'Pacta sunt servanda' , the Dublin commitment to the stability pact must be stuck to. We cannot accept any changes to this Pact which is also a pact for economic growth. Furthermore, the criteria and the deadline set in the framework of monetary union must be applied as they were agreed upon and we want the Amsterdam IGC to be a success. We are nonetheless of the opinion that the stability pact must be complemented. Yesterday, Mr Lamfalussy described the fundamental revolution carried out by monetary union in Europe. The reduction in inflation below the 2 % level, reduction in budgetary deficits. This is an essential base, especially for creating jobs and for economic prosperity, but we have lost ten years. I might perhaps add that, when I was President-in-Office of the European Council in 1987 I tried, in conjunction with Jacques Delors, to create a common social base and to establish dialogue between the social partners in Europe and conclude collective bargaining agreements at European level. We did not succeed. We have wasted ten years and at the Maastricht Summit we failed to integrate the social chapter into the Treaty, something which will now take place. Now we must reinforce it. We all agree on this. But it is also of vital importance that employment should become an objective of the European Community. We therefore approve the Dutch proposal to include a six-point title - the number is irrelevant - on cooperation between the Member States, which it encouraged, supported and possibly complemented. The Dutch Presidency has pointed out that the setting up of an employment committee has been accepted and that is something we welcome. We also still bank on the implementation of Jacques Santer's confidence-building pact. According to us the stability pact cannot be withdrawn but it should be strengthened. It must be complemented and Jacques Delors recently emphasized that Article 103 of the Treaty authorizes this. We would therefore insist on this point and we hope that, in these circumstances, the stability pact will be signed in Amsterdam just as the PPE heads of government decided to do yesterday. That at least is our position. I now come to the IGC. The Dutch Presidency's proposals make up a remarkable document in our view. I would say that it is a valid minimum, Mr President-in-Office. However, we cannot accept that, as we have been told, and as the European Commission's President emphasized, the big countries should take various initiatives, including diplomatic ones, in order to undermine it. This project represents for
{'language': 'en'}